ReviewAbdominal radiology (New York)2026
Enhanced myometrial vascularity: what, where and when to treat.
Review in Abdominal radiology (New York), 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Enhanced myometrial vascularity (EMV) is defined as focal myometrial hypervascularity at the former placental implantation site identified after a recent pregnancy. Spectral Doppler imaging shows characteristic high velocity, low resistance flow. Proposed mechanisms underlying prolonged EMV include delayed involution of remodeled uterine arteries and persistent trophoblastic activity with associated neoangiogenesis. EMV may reflect normal involution or subinvolution of the placental site or may be associated with retained products of conception. While often self-limited in asymptomatic patients, EMV in the setting of abnormal uterine bleeding warrants further evaluation and tailored management. Terminological ambiguity persists between EMV and acquired arteriovenous malformation (AVM) or fistula (AVF). Although Doppler findings may suggest arteriovenous shunting, cross-sectional imaging alone cannot reliably distinguish these entities, and catheter angiography remains the reference standard when definitive characterization is required. Importantly, many cases labeled as "acquired AVM" in the postpregnancy setting likely represent EMV related to persistent uteroplacental circulation or subinvolution rather than true vascular malformations. This distinction is clinically important, as true high-flow lesions, though less common, carry a risk of significant hemorrhage and may require uterine artery embolization. EMV may also be seen following intrauterine ectopic pregnancies, most commonly those implanted within a Cesarean scar. Several conditions may mimic EMV, including adenomyosis, pseudoaneurysm, gestational trophoblastic disease, fibroids, polyps, endometrial neoplasm and infection. Management is individualized based on clinical status, imaging findings, and associated conditions. Accurate recognition of EMV and use of this specific terminology as well as differentiation from mimics, is essential to guide appropriate care and avoid unnecessary interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42340463What 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.