Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 736

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Endovaginal Ultrasound to Exclude Endometrial Cancer and Other Endometrial Abnormalities

Smith-Bindman, Rebecca, Kerlikowske, Karla, Feldstein, Vickie A., Subak, Leslee, Scheidler, Juergen, Segal, Mark, Brand, Richard, Grady, Deborah·1998·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: Postmenopausal vaginal bleeding is a common clinical problem. Endovaginal ultrasound (EVUS) is a noninvasive diagnostic test that may help determine which women should undergo endometrial biopsy. OBJECTIVE: To determine the accuracy of EVUS in detecting endometrial disease in postmenopausal women with vaginal bleeding according to hormone replacement use. DATA SOURCES: Literature search of English-language and non-English-language articles published from 1966 through November 1996 using MEDLINE and by a manual search of bibliographies of published articles. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were included if they prospectively collected EVUS measurements of endometrial thickness prior to obtaining endometrial tissue for histologic evaluation in postmenopausal women with vaginal bleeding. Of 85 studies that included data on EVUS and endometrial histology, 35 were included in the meta-analysis and included 5892 women. DATA EXTRACTION: Articles were reviewed and independently selected and abstracted by 2 reviewers. Disagreement was resolved by consensus. DATA SYNTHESIS: The overall summary mean weighted estimates of sensitivity and specificity were calculated for thresholds of endometrial thickness from 3 to 10 mm. Using a 5-mm threshold to define abnormal endometrial thickening, 96% (95% confidence interval [CI], 94%-98%) of women with cancer had an abnormal EVUS result, whereas 92% (95% CI, 90%-93%) of women with endometrial disease (cancer, polyp, or atypical hyperplasia) had an abnormal result. This did not vary by hormone replacement use. However, the number of women with normal histology who had an abnormal EVUS result did vary by hormone replacement use. In women who were not using hormone replacement therapy, 593 (8%) with normal histological findings had an abnormal EVUS result (specificity, 92%; 95% CI, 90%-94%), whereas 1544 (23%) using hormone replacement therapy had an abnormal EVUS result (specificity, 77%; 95% CI, 75%-79%). For a postmenopausal woman with vaginal bleeding with a 10% pretest probability of endometrial cancer, her probability of cancer is 1% following a normal EVUS result. CONCLUSION: Endovaginal ultrasound has a high sensitivity for detecting endometrial cancer and other endometrial disease and can reliably identify postmenopausal women with vaginal bleeding who are highly unlikely to have significant endometrial disease so that endometrial sampling may be unnecessary.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.280.17.1510

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 736

Metadata

Authors
Smith-Bindman, R., Kerlikowske, K., Feldstein, V. A., Subak, L., Scheidler, J., Segal, M., Brand, R., & Grady, D.
Venue
JAMA
Published
1998-11-04
Volume
280
Issue
17
Pages
1510-7
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W1997015143
Cited by
736
References
0
FWCI
30.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Endovaginal Ultrasound to Exclude Endometrial Cancer and Other Endometrial Abnormalities. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.280.17.1510
The paper
Smith-Bindman, R., Kerlikowske, K., Feldstein, V. A., Subak, L., Scheidler, J., Segal, M., Brand, R., & Grady, D. (1998). Endovaginal Ultrasound to Exclude Endometrial Cancer and Other Endometrial Abnormalities. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.17.1510

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.