Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.creatorAlcazar, J.L. (Juan Luis)-
dc.creatorVara, J. (J.)-
dc.creatorUsandizaga, C. (Claudia)-
dc.creatorAjossa, S. (Silvia)-
dc.creatorPascual, M.A. (Maria Angela)-
dc.creatorGuerriero, S. (Stefano)-
dc.date.accessioned2024-02-13T11:45:34Z-
dc.date.available2024-02-13T11:45:34Z-
dc.date.issued2022-
dc.identifier.citationAlcazar, J.L. (Juan Luis); Vara, J. (J.); Usandizaga, C. (Claudia). "Transvaginal ultrasound versus magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosing adenomyosis: A systematic review and head-to-head meta-analysis". International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics. 161 (2), 2022, 397 - 405es_ES
dc.identifier.issn1879-3479-
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10171/69093-
dc.description.abstractBackground: Transvaginal ultrasound (TVS) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are used for the clinical diagnosis of adenomyosis. Objectives: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of TVS and MRI for the diagnosis of adenomyosis. Search strategy: A search of studies was performed in five databases comparing TVS and MRI for the diagnosis of adenomyosis from January 1990 to May 2022. Selection criteria: Studies were eligible if they reported on the use of TVS and MRI in the same set of patients. The reference standard must be pathology (hysterectomy). Data collection and analysis: The quality of studies was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of both techniques were estimated and compared. Main results: Six studies comprising 595 women were included. The risk of bias of patient selection was high in three studies. The risk of bias for index tests and reference test was low. Pooled estimated sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio for TVS were 75%, 81%, 3.9, and 0.31, respectively. These figures for MRI were 69%, 80%, 3.5, and 0.39, respectively. No statistically significant differences were found (p = 0.7509). Heterogeneity was high. Conclusions: MRI and TVS have similar performances for the diagnosis of adenomyosis.es_ES
dc.language.isoenges_ES
dc.publisherWileyes_ES
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesses_ES
dc.subjectAdenomyosises_ES
dc.subjectDiagnosises_ES
dc.subjectMagnetic resonance imaginges_ES
dc.subjectTransvaginal ultrasoundes_ES
dc.titleTransvaginal ultrasound versus magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosing adenomyosis: A systematic review and head-to-head meta-analysises_ES
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlees_ES
dc.description.noteThis is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs Licensees_ES
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/ijgo.14609-
dadun.citation.endingPage405es_ES
dadun.citation.number2es_ES
dadun.citation.publicationNameInternational Journal of Gynecology & Obstetricses_ES
dadun.citation.startingPage397es_ES
dadun.citation.volume161es_ES
dc.identifier.pmid36461921-

Files in This Item:
Thumbnail
File
Intl J Gynecology Obste - 2022 - Alc zar - Transvaginal ultrasound versus magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosing.pdf
Description
Size
3.1 MB
Format
Adobe PDF


Statistics and impact
0 citas en
0 citas en

Items in Dadun are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.