ReviewFrontiers in reproductive health2026
Ultrasound modalities and age-specific normative findings in pediatric and adolescent gynecology.
Review in Frontiers in reproductive 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ultrasound is the first-line modality for imaging the female gynecological organs in children and adolescents. Its interpretation relies on understanding the physiological changes in organ appearance from birth through puberty. This narrative review considers different ultrasound approaches including transabdominal, transvaginal, transrectal, transperineal, Doppler and three-dimensional ultrasound, and when magnetic resonance imaging may add useful information. It then describes how normal uterine, ovarian, and endometrial appearances change across development. Although the evidence is drawn mainly from cross-sectional studies using different equipment, measurement methods, and reporting approaches, the studies describe a broadly consistent developmental pattern. A central practical message emerges: thresholds and diagnostic criteria derived from adults translate poorly to the developing pelvis, so interpretation rests not on memorizing cut-offs but on knowing what to expect at each age and stage, and on recognizing how wide normal physiological variation is. The review also identifies the principal evidence gaps: sparse data at the youngest ages, limited representation of diverse populations, an absence of longitudinal studies, a reliance on adult-derived criteria for diagnosing pathology such as adnexal masses, adenomyosis and endometriosis, and the lack of a standardized reporting framework. It then sets out priorities for future research.
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.