ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Study on the diagnostic value of 3.0 T endovaginal coil magnetic resonance imaging technique for early cervical cancer.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic value of 3.0 T endovaginal coil magnetic resonance imaging technique for early cervical cancer. Methods: Forty patients with early cervical cancer admitted to the gynecology department of the hospital were selected, and each patient underwent pelvic magnetic resonance scanning with external array coil and intravaginal coil, respectively. The imaging quality scores of the two coil images were analyzed and compared by two radiologist with double-blind method, and the accuracy of preoperative pathological staging of early cervical cancer (stage Ia1-Ib1) was compared between the two groups with postoperative pathological results as the gold standard. Results: The image quality score of the endovaginal coil group was significantly higher than that of the external array coil group, and the difference was statistically significant ( Conclusion: 3.0 T magnetic resonance combined with endovaginal coil is better than external array coil in the imaging diagnosis of early cervical cancer, and can more accurately diagnose cervical cancer.
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.