ArticleRevista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992)2026
Comparative study of transvaginal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis and classification of cesarean scar pregnancy.
Article in Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992), 2026. 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
objectiveCesarean scar pregnancy is a rare form of ectopic pregnancy in which the fertilized egg implants within the scar of a previous cesarean section. With the rising global cesarean delivery rate, the incidence of cesarean scar pregnancy has increased, posing serious risks such as massive hemorrhage and uterine rupture. To evaluate and compare the diagnostic and classification accuracy of transvaginal sonography and magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of cesarean scar pregnancy.
methodsThis retrospective study included 102 patients clinically suspected of cesarean scar pregnancy between January 2023 and May 2024. All patients underwent both transvaginal sonography and magnetic resonance imaging. Using final clinical and pathological diagnoses as the reference standard, the sensitivity, overall diagnostic accuracy, and classification accuracy of transvaginal sonography and magnetic resonance imaging were compared.
resultsMagnetic resonance imaging demonstrated significantly higher sensitivity, diagnostic accuracy, and classification accuracy than transvaginal sonography (p<0.05). Compared with transvaginal sonography, magnetic resonance imaging also showed superior detection rates for intrauterine hemorrhage, villous invasion of the myometrium, and invasion of the bladder and/or cervix, with statistically significant differences (p<0.05).
conclusionMagnetic resonance imaging demonstrates superior diagnostic and classification accuracy compared to transvaginal sonography in evaluating cesarean scar pregnancy. As a valuable adjunct to ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging facilitates more accurate diagnosis and individualized treatment planning, thereby reducing the risks of severe complications such as massive hemorrhage, hysterectomy, and maternal mortality in women of reproductive age.
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.