Cited by 50Endometriosis Research and TreatmentGynecological conditions and treatmentsEndometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison of transvaginal sonography and double‐contrast barium enema for diagnosing deep infiltrating endometriosis of the posterior compartment

Open access
Savelli, L., Manuzzi, L., Coe, M., Mabrouk, M., Di Donato, N., Venturoli, S., Seracchioli, R.·2011·Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology

Abstract

Objectives: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of transvaginal sonography (TVS) and double‐contrast barium enema (DCBE) in the preoperative detection of deep infiltrating endometriosis (DIE) of the posterior compartment. Methods: This was a prospective study of 69 consecutive patients with results of pelvic examination or symptoms suggestive of DIE of the posterior compartment. TVS and DCBE were performed before surgery by two groups of physicians specialized in endometriosis, each blinded to the results of the other technique. Imaging data were compared with histopathologic analysis of the resected specimen (gold standard). Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and test accuracies were calculated for both imaging modalities. Results: Sixty seven of the 69 women had a nodule of DIE confirmed at laparoscopy and histopathologic examination. TVS diagnosed DIE in 57 (85%) of these patients, while DCBE revealed the presence of the lesion in 24 (36%) women. For the diagnosis of posterior DIE, TVS and DCBE had, respectively, a sensitivity of 85% and 36%, specificity of 100% and 100%, positive predictive value of 100% and 100%, negative predictive value of 17% and 4% and accuracy of 85.5% and 38%. In patients with pure bowel DIE the sensitivity was 91% and 43%, specificity was 100% and 100%, positive predictive value was 100% and 100%, negative predictive value was 29% and 6% and accuracy was 91% and 45%, respectively. Conclusions: TVS has a much higher sensitivity than does DCBE in detecting the presence of posterior DIE and should thus be regarded as the imaging modality of choice when there is clinical suspicion of the disease. Copyright © 2011 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 · 10.1002/uog.9072

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • TVS showed a better agreement with histology then DCBE (Cohen's K, 0.413 versus 0.04).

    “Furthermore, TVS showed a better agreement with histology then DCBE (Cohen’s K, 0.413 versus 0.04).”
  • Savelli et al. (2011) compared double-contrast barium enema (DCBE) and TVS for the detection of bowel lesions, and reported a sensitivity of, respectively, 43% versus 91%, a negative predictive value of 6% versus 29%, and an overall accuracy of 45% versus 91%.

    “Finally, Savelli et al. (2011) compared double-contrast barium enema (DCBE) and TVS for the detection of bowel lesions, and reported a sensitivity of, respectively, 43% versus 91%, a negative predictive value of 6% versus 29%, and an overall accuracy of 45% versus 91%.”

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 19

  1. 10.1016/S0015-0282(16)53570-5 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1093/humrep/15.4.767 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1093/humrep/deg009 · DOI
  4. 10.1034/j.1600-0412.2001.080004349.x · DOI
  5. 10.1093/humrep/deg243 · DOI
  6. 10.1016/S1074-3804(05)60266-6 · DOI
  7. 10.1093/humrep/deg314 · DOI
  8. 10.1002/uog.1108 · DOI
  9. 10.1002/uog.4070 · DOI
  10. 10.1093/humrep/dem187 · DOI
  11. 10.1002/uog.8858 · DOI · Paper page
  12. 10.2214/ajr.138.3.549 · DOI
  13. 10.1016/S1074-3804(05)60203-4 · DOI
  14. 10.2214/AJR.07.3062 · DOI
  15. 10.1007/s00261-009-9544-5 · DOI
  16. 10.1007/s00261-010-9610-z · DOI
  17. 10.1016/S0015-0282(16)48430-X · DOI · Paper page
  18. 10.1002/uog.6392 · DOI
  19. 10.1093/humrep/den057 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Savelli, L., Manuzzi, L., Coe, M., Mabrouk, M., Di Donato, N., Venturoli, S., & Seracchioli, R.
Affiliations
IRCCS Azienda Ospedliero-Universitaria di Bologna Policlinico di Sant'Orsola (IT)
Corresponding author
Savelli, L.
Venue
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-09-20
Volume
38
Issue
4
Pages
466-471
ISSN
  • 0960-7692 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-0705
OpenAlex
W2034094025
Cited by
50
References
1
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 2
FWCI
5.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Archivio istituzionale della ricerca (Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Endometriosis Research and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Gynecological conditions and treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Endometrial and Cervical Cancer Treatments
Keywords
deep infiltrating endometriosis, transvaginal ultrasound, double-contrast barium enema, diagnostic accuracy, bowel endometriosis, preoperative diagnosis, sensitivity and specificity
MeSH terms
Adult, Barium Sulfate, Contrast Media, Endometriosis, Enema, Female, Humans, Laparoscopy, Predictive Value of Tests, Prospective Studies, Rectum, Sensitivity and Specificity, Ultrasonography, Vagina

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