ArticleCureus2025
Preoperative Diagnosis of Symptomatic Adenomyosis: Limitations and Clinical Insights.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the diagnostic accuracy of adenomyosis on transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) in a community hospital.
designRetrospective cohort study Participants: A total of 124 patients who underwent hysterectomy between September 2022 and August 2024.
settingA tertiary referral academic center Methods: All patients were referred to the Fibroid Clinic (BronxCare Health System) with symptomatic uterine fibroids or adenomyosis and underwent total hysterectomy. Postoperative pathological results were used as the reference standard. Collective data on TVUS, history, physical examination, and preoperative diagnosis were all studied. The primary goal was to evaluate the accuracy of TVUS in diagnosing adenomyosis by either radiologists or minimally invasive gynecologic surgeon (MIGS). The secondary objective was to identify the clinical factors associated with preoperative diagnosis of adenomyosis.
resultAccording to histologic reports from the surgical specimen, 61 (49.2%) patients had uterine fibroids only, 50 (40.3%) had concomitant fibroids and adenomyosis, and 13 (10.5 %) had adenomyosis only. There were no significant differences in age, race, or BMI among patients in the three groups. The accuracy of radiologist-interpreted TVUS for adenomyosis was found to be low in patients with pure adenomyosis (0 out of 13) and in those with both fibroids and adenomyosis (0 out of 50). In contrast, MIGS interpretation demonstrated 83.3% sensitivity for pure adenomyosis, which decreased to 30.6% in the presence of concomitant fibroids. The presence of uterine tenderness (UT) on bimanual examination is an independent predictor of adenomyosis, even with the presence of uterine fibroids or a uterine size larger than 14 weeks. When the uterine size was less than 14 weeks, the clinical presence of dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia, or UT was significantly associated with adenomyosis. The clinical assessment and TVUS interpretation by MIGS resulted in a 62.0% sensitivity and 84.0% specificity for adenomyosis in our cohort.
conclusionThe diagnosis of adenomyosis based on TVUS or a radiologist's interpretation of TVUS can be underestimated. A comprehensive assessment, including clinical history, physical examination, and ultrasound interpretation by gynecologists, is essential for accurate diagnosis, patient counseling, and appropriate management.
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.