2001
DOI: 10.1016/s0015-0282(01)01900-8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation of the uterine cavity with magnetic resonance imaging, transvaginal sonography, hysterosonographic examination, and diagnostic hysteroscopy

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
86
1
4

Year Published

2006
2006
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 160 publications
(94 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
3
86
1
4
Order By: Relevance
“…Those suspected of having endometrial polyps then underwent SCSH in order to confirm the diagnosis, as SCSH has proven to be superior to conventional TVS for diagnosing abnormalities in the uterine cavity 12,13 . The technique of SIS used in this study has previously been described 14 .…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Those suspected of having endometrial polyps then underwent SCSH in order to confirm the diagnosis, as SCSH has proven to be superior to conventional TVS for diagnosing abnormalities in the uterine cavity 12,13 . The technique of SIS used in this study has previously been described 14 .…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…10 Ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are modalities of choice for diagnosis of uterine fibroids. 11 Location, size, number and extent of myoma penetration into the myometrium are usually evaluated by MRI without the use of gadolinium contrast. The drawbacks of MRI in evaluation of uterine fibroids include high cost and low accessibility compared to ultrasound which is simple, non-invasive, affordable and more readily available.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In comparative studies between various methods of intra-uterine diagnostic procedures, SIS appears to be more reliable than transvaginal ultrasound alone and as predictive as hysteroscopy. The reliability of transvaginal ultrasound increases with the addition of saline solution as a contrast medium [17,[33][34][35][36]. In a meta-analysis by de Kroon et al the following data were established in this respect: sensitivity 0.95 (95% CI 0.93 to 0.97), specificity 0.88 (95% CI 0.85 to 0.92), likelihood ratios 8.23 (95% CI 6.2 to 11) and 0.06 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.09) [37].…”
Section: Sonohysterographymentioning
confidence: 99%