ArticleInsights into imaging2026
Assessment of risk factors for pelvic organ prolapse using dynamic MRI combined with clinical data.
Article in Insights into imaging, 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
objectiveTo investigate the risk factors for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) using dynamic MRI in combination with clinical data. MATERIALS AND
methodsPostpartum women who visited between August 2023 and October 2024 were enrolled. Patients were classified into the POP group if the lowest point of the anterior and/or middle compartment organs descended more than 1 cm below the pubococcygeal line (PCL) during straining, and into the non-POP group otherwise. Statistical analysis was conducted to compare MRI parameters and clinical data between the two groups.
resultsA total of 94 cases were assigned to the POP group and 276 to the non-POP group. Univariate and Multivariate logistic regression identified mode of delivery, straining H-line length, H-line difference, and M-line difference as independent risk factors for POP. The cutoff values for straining H-line length, H-line difference, and M-line difference were 5.45 cm, 0.65 cm, and 0.75 cm, respectively. Among these, the H-line difference had the highest area under the curve (AUC = 0.889) and the highest Youden index (0.606). Both H-line difference (r = 0.577, p < 0.001) and M-line difference (r = 0.531, p < 0.001) showed a positive correlation with the occurrence of POP.
conclusionDynamic MRI combined with clinical data provides an accurate diagnostic approach for POP. Patients with a history of vaginal delivery, straining H-line > 5.45 cm, H-line difference > 0.65 cm, and M-line difference > 0.75 cm should be considered at high risk and may benefit from early clinical intervention. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: By integrating clinical data, we aimed to identify risk factors associated with prolapse, thereby providing scientific evidence to support early detection, timely intervention, and preventive strategies for POP in clinical settings. KEY POINTS: This study established a comprehensive framework for assessing the risk of pelvic organ prolapse (POP), thereby enhancing diagnostic precision and clinical applicability. The H-line difference demonstrated the highest predictive value for POP, with the greatest AUC (0.889) and the highest Youden's index (0.606). H-line and M-line differences were identified as independent risk factors for POP, with cutoff values of 0.65 cm and 0.75 cm.
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.