ArticleOncology letters2026
Diagnostic value of magnetic resonance imaging in preoperative evaluation of cervical cancer and analysis of pathological features.
Article in Oncology letters, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present study aimed to unveil the diagnostic value of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the preoperative evaluation of cervical cancer and its analysis of pathological features. A total of 110 patients with cervical cancer were included. MRI was performed 1 week before surgery, with postoperative pathological assessment serving as the gold standard for diagnostic comparison. The accuracy of MRI staging was assessed and its ability to evaluate pathological features, including pelvic lymph node metastasis (LNM), parametrial invasion and vaginal involvement, was analyzed. Additionally, the diagnostic performance of MRI was evaluated, including factors such as sensitivity, specificity and accuracy for pelvic LNM, parametrial invasion and vaginal involvement. The diagnostic accuracy of MRI for clinical staging showed minimal differences compared with pathological diagnosis, with no statistically significant differences found. Similarly, MRI demonstrated a high consistency with a pathological diagnosis in detecting pelvic LNM, parametrial invasion and vaginal involvement in cervical cancer. MRI demonstrated high sensitivity, specificity and accuracy for these features. Sensitivity was highest for vaginal involvement, specificity was highest for pelvic LNM and accuracy was highest for parametrial invasion. In conclusion, MRI demonstrates high accuracy in the clinical staging of cervical cancer, including the assessment of pelvic LNM, parametrial invasion, and vaginal involvement; it can be used to guide the selection of surgical approaches preoperatively and should be considered a routine examination before surgery.
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.