Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41909383›Full record

ArticleCureus2026

Evaluation of Gynecological Mass Lesions Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging: An Observational Study.

Tanushri Ghosh, Subhankar Choudhury, Anand Kumar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Tanushri GhoshDepartment of Radiodiagnosis, Hi-Tech Medical College and Hospital, Rourkela, IND.
Subhankar ChoudhuryDepartment of Pharmacology, Hi-Tech Medical College and Hospital, Rourkela, IND.
Anand KumarDepartment of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, Hi-Tech Medical College and Hospital, Rourkela, IND.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGynecological masses in females comprise benign and malignant masses. These lesions have become a great concern for gynecologists and radiologists because the pelvic organs are aligned in such proximity that any masses arising from these organs may share similar signs and symptoms. Though ultrasonography is the first preference to investigate these masses, it has limited value because of its poor acoustic windows, poor depth of penetration, and operator dependency. Computed tomography is devoid of soft tissue contrast and becomes more complex when discriminating pelvic lesions from decompressed loops of intestine. However, MRI has been found to be more useful than other imaging modalities because it provides better contrast resolution, which facilitates precise tissue characterization and enhanced anatomical depiction; therefore, it is more specific and accurate than ultrasonography and computed tomography for diagnosing gynecological masses. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis retrospective study was conducted in the Department of Radiodiagnosis at Hi-Tech Medical College and Hospital, Rourkela, Odisha, after obtaining approval from the Institutional Ethics Committee. After optimizing the minimal sample size, a total of 106 cases were selected for this study during the period of February 2024 to July 2025. Patients who underwent MR imaging of the pelvis on the advice of the referring gynecologist after suspicion of a gynecological mass were included in this study.

resultsOut of 106 cases, 69 (65.09%) were neoplasms, and 37 (34.91%) were non-neoplastic lesions. Among the neoplasms, 52 (49.06%) were benign masses and 17 (16.04%) were malignant masses. Among benign masses, fibroids were identified in 31 cases (29.24%), and benign ovarian tumors in 21 cases (19.81%). Of the malignant lesions, nine (8.49%) were cervical carcinomas, seven (6.6%) were endometrial carcinomas, and one was an ovarian epithelial carcinoma. Among the non-neoplastic lesions, the incidence of endometriosis at 19 (17.92%) was the highest. It was followed by seven cases of adenomyosis (6.6%). Other non-neoplastic masses were ovarian cysts, endometrial polyps, hematocolpos, and retained products of conception.

conclusionMRI is the sole imaging technique that effectively assesses gynecological masses and addresses radiological challenges. Its non-invasive nature renders it preferable for patients, particularly when ethical concerns arise regarding histopathological evaluations. Additionally, MRI aids in the characterization, classification, and future management of gynecological masses.

Indexed as

gynecological massesmagnetic resonance imagingnon-neoplastic massesovarian neoplasmsuterine neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID41909383
PMCPMC13021393

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.