ArticleBMC women's health2026
Comparison of four imaging modalities for cesarean scar defect: a retrospective study.
Article in BMC women's health, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsWe compared four imaging methods: transvaginal ultrasound(TVU), magnetic resonance imaging(MRI), saline contrast-enhanced MRI (SCE_MRI) and hysteroscopy combined with transabdominal ultrasound (HSC_TAU) for evaluating cesarean scar defect(CSD) morphology and clinical correlations.
methodsSixty-one women with prior cesarean delivery and prolonged menstrual bleeding underwent all four imaging modalities within days 7-14 of a single menstrual cycle. We measured CSD length, width, depth, and residual myometrial thickness (TRM), and compared detection rates and severity classification, and the linear regression between CSD length and menstrual bleeding duration.
resultsHSC_TAU detected CSD in 100% of patients, compared to 94% for TVU, 97% for MRI, and 97% for SCE_MRI. HSC_TAU measured longer CSD length (median 15.4 mm) than TVU (6.5 mm), MRI (8.0 mm), and SCE_MRI (8.2 mm) (P < 0.001). TVU measured thicker TRM (median 2.7 mm) than HSC_TAU (2.0 mm), MRI (2.0 mm), and SCE_MRI (1.8 mm) (P < 0.001). Using TRM < 2.5 mm as the threshold for severe CSD, TVU identified only 43% of cases as severe, while HSC_TAU, MRI, and SCE_MRI identified 66-77%. The linear regression analysis revealed a significant association between HSC_TAU-measured CSD length and menstrual bleeding duration (regression coefficient β = 0.24, 95% CI: 0.08-0.30, R² = 0.14, p = 0.003).
conclusionHSC_TAU offers high detection rate and reliable TRM measurement. TVU tends to underestimate CSD size and overestimate TRM, which may lead to underdiagnosis of severe cases. We suggest using TVU for initial screening and HSC_TAU for preoperative evaluation in symptomatic patients.
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.