ReviewInsights into imaging2026
Gynecologic imaging errors and pitfalls: how to avoid misdiagnosis on pelvic MRI.
Review 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
Pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) plays a pivotal role in evaluating gynecologic diseases, offering superior soft-tissue characterization, multiplanar imaging, and functional assessment compared to ultrasound and computed tomography. This article proposes evidence-based, standardized MRI protocols and a reproducible interpretative framework to enhance diagnostic accuracy, reduce misdiagnoses, and support multidisciplinary management in routine clinical practice. Key insights cover MR imaging of major gynecologic diseases: endometriosis, adnexal masses including the O-RADS MR scoring system, and pathological hypothesis as well as uterine diseases including endometrial, cervical, and myometrial benign and malignant conditions. For all situations, we present typical and atypical presentations as well as mimickers. This article will give some tips and tricks to help the radiologist in clinical routine for detecting and differentiating the main issues that impact patient management. By adopting standardized protocols and reports with adequate pathology knowledge, radiologists can improve patient outcomes through precise staging, surgical planning, and personalized care. KEY POINTS: Question How can radiologists avoid common diagnostic errors and pitfalls when interpreting pelvic MRI for gynecologic diseases, including endometriosis, uterine tumors, and adnexal masses? Findings Knowledge of common pitfalls, standardized MRI protocols with Dixon-based T1-weighted sequences, diffusion-weighted imaging, and dynamic contrast enhancement, if necessary, combined with structured reporting frameworks including O-RADS MRI and FIGO 2023, reduces misdiagnosis across gynecologic conditions. Critical Relevance Statement This article critically reviews typical and atypical presentations alongside common mimickers of major gynecologic diseases on pelvic MRI, providing radiologists with practical evidence-based strategies to improve diagnostic accuracy, reduce unnecessary interventions, and support multidisciplinary clinical decision-making.
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.