The Diagnostic Accuracy of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Versus Transvaginal Ultrasound in Deep Infiltrating Endometriosis and Their Impact on Surgical Decision-Making: A Systematic Review.

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

1. From Endometriosis to Endometriosis-Associated Ovarian Cancer: Molecular Mechanisms, Risk Stratification and Clinical Implications.Cancers · 2026
   Review
2. Menstrual Effluent in the Pathogenesis and Diagnosis of Endometriosis-A Systematic Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
   Review
3. Diffuse Adenomyosis Coexisting with rASRM Stage IV Endometriosis in a Young Woman: Diagnostic Delay and Imaging Discrepancy.International journal of women's health · 2026
   Article
4. A Machine Learning-Based Prediction Model for Deep Infiltrating Endometriosis.International journal of women's health · 2026
   Article

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as