ArticleScientific reports2025
Prognostic value of ultrasonography findings in patients with cervical cancer.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluating Performance of Transvaginal Doppler Parameters in Differentiating Cervical Neoplastic Severity.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The possible contribution of ultrasonography to the prognosis of cervical cancer is still mostly unknown. Clinicopathological information about patients with cervical cancer from 2019 to 2024 was gathered from the database of the Chongqing Medical University Second Affiliated Hospital. A training group comprising 70% of the dataset and a validation cohort comprising 30% were randomly selected. Univariate and multivariate competing risk models were used to identify independent prognostic markers. A nomogram to forecast the probability of death specific to cancer was created based on these variables. ROC curves, area under the curve (AUC), concordance index (C-index), and calibration curves were used to evaluate the nomogram's accuracy and discriminative power. The training and validation sets were validated independently. 428 individuals with cervical cancer were randomized to be in one of two groups: the training group (n = 296) or the validation group (n = 132). 54.0 months was the average follow-up period (range: 6.0-80.0 months). Advanced age (p = 0.002) and FIGO stages III-IV (p = 0.020) were strongly linked to premature mortality. Moreover, no previous surgery and ultrasound-assessed blood supply and interstitial infiltration were also independently correlated with lesser overall survival. These results led to the development of a nomogram to estimate cancer-specific survival at one, two, and three years. In this work, we created and verified a predictive nomogram for patients with cervical cancer, integrating ultrasonography characteristics into a survival prediction model for the first time.
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.