ArticleUltrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology2026
Cervical length assessment using magnetic resonance imaging during pregnancy: correlation and agreement with transvaginal ultrasound.
Article in Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 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 assess the correlation between cervical length (CL) measurements obtained via fetal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and transvaginal ultrasound (TVS), and the accuracy of CL measurements obtained via MRI in diagnosing a second-trimester short cervix, using TVS as the gold standard.
methodsThis was a retrospective cross-sectional study of pregnancies referred to our center between January 2022 and December 2024 that underwent fetal MRI and TVS examination on the same day. We estimated the correlation between MRI- and TVS-derived CL measurements using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient, with stratified analysis by pertinent clinical variables. Bland-Altman analysis was used to evaluate the agreement between the two imaging methods. Finally, for the subset of patients examined in the second trimester, we calculated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of CL ≤ 25 mm on fetal MRI for predicting a short cervix with CL < 25 mm on TVS.
resultsWe screened 132 patients, of whom 31 were excluded owing to incomplete data and one was excluded due to having a cervical cerclage in place. Therefore, 100 patients were included for analysis. There was a strong correlation between MRI- and TVS-derived CL measurements (r = 0.775; P < 0.001), which remained significant regardless of maternal body mass index, pregnancy type (singleton vs multiple) and CL on TVS (< 25 mm vs ≥ 25 mm). According to the Bland-Altman analysis, the mean difference in CL measurements between MRI and TVS was -0.97 (95% limits of agreement, -13.67 to 11.73) mm. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of MRI-derived CL ≤ 25 mm for predicting a short cervix on TVS in the second trimester were 100% (95% CI, 59.0-100%), 94.6% (95% CI, 86.9-98.5%), 63.6% (95% CI, 30.8-89.1%) and 100% (95% CI, 94.9-100%), respectively.
conclusionsCL measurements obtained using fetal MRI correlate with those obtained using TVS. MRI-derived CL estimates may help to exclude a short cervix during pregnancy in selected patients undergoing MRI for other indications. However, larger studies are needed to validate our findings, and TVS remains the gold standard for cervical assessment during pregnancy. © 2026 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
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.