ArticleCureus2025
The Role of Ultrasonography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Evaluation of Adnexal Masses With Histopathological Correlation.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate evaluation of adnexal masses is crucial for appropriate management, distinguishing benign from malignant lesions, and guiding surgical planning. Ultrasonography (USG) is commonly used as a first-line modality, while magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) provides detailed tissue characterization. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of USG and MRI in the assessment of adnexal masses and to correlate imaging findings with histopathological examination (HPE).
methodsA prospective study was conducted on 67 patients presenting with adnexal masses. All patients underwent USG and MRI evaluation, including assessment of tumor size, surface, septations, solid components, vascularity, ascites, and lymphadenopathy. Imaging findings were correlated with HPE results. Diagnostic performance metrics, such as sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy, were calculated for each modality.
resultsUSG identified 76.1% of masses as benign and 23.9% as malignant, while MRI identified 79.1% as benign and 20.9% as malignant. MRI demonstrated higher sensitivity (98.2% vs 92.6%), specificity (100% vs 92.3%), PPV (100% vs 98.0%), NPV (92.9% vs 75.0%), and overall diagnostic accuracy (98.5% vs 92.5%) compared with USG. MRI also better detected septations, solid components, ascites, and lymphadenopathy. Histopathology confirmed that benign cystic lesions were the most common pathology, with a small proportion of malignant tumors. The correlation between USG and MRI findings showed high agreement, indicating the reliability of USG as an initial assessment tool.
conclusionUSG is a dependable first-line imaging modality for evaluating adnexal masses, while MRI provides superior diagnostic confidence, particularly in complex or suspicious cases. Combined imaging and histopathological correlation optimize diagnostic accuracy, guide surgical planning, and improve patient outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.