The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Magnetic resonance imaging characteristics of deep endometriosis
Open accessAbstract
The aim of this study was to describe magnetic resonance (MR) imaging findings in histopathologically proven deep endometriosis infiltrating the uterosacral ligaments, the pouch of Douglas, the rectum or the bladder. Twenty patients presenting with a clinical suspicion of deep endometriosis underwent preoperative MR imaging. Sagittal and axial fast T2- and axial T1-weighted spin echo MR sequences were performed. Four patients had post-contrast images. MR results, including morphology and signal intensity of each lesion, were compared to intraoperative gross appearance and histopathology. Histopathology diagnosed 24 lesions of deep endometriosis in the uterosacral ligaments (n = 12), the pouch of Douglas (n = 2), the rectum (n = 3), the bladder (n = 7). Uterosacral ligaments with deep endometriosis were statistically different from normal uterosacral ligaments for proximal nodularity (P = 0.001). There was no difference in signal intensity between normal and abnormal uterosacral ligaments. Contrast-enhanced SE images in four patients with detrusor invasion showed an interruption of the hypointense detrusor by the enhancing bladder endometriosis. Rectal endometriosis was missed in two of three patients and showed non-specific rectal wall thickening in one patient. It is concluded that MR imaging can diagnose deep endometriosis of uterosacral ligaments, the bladder and the pouch of Douglas, but lacks sensitivity in detecting rectal endometriosis without rectal distension.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Koninckx, P. R., Meuleman, C., Demeyere, S., Lesaffre, E., & Cornillie, F. J. (1991) · Fertility and Sterility · doi:10.1016/s0015-0282(16)54244-7 · Cited by 849
Koninckx, P. R., Meuleman, C., Oosterlynck, D., & Cornillie, F. J. (1996) · Fertility and Sterility · doi:10.1016/s0015-0282(16)58086-8 · Cited by 183
Cited by
Deep Pelvic Endometriosis: MR Imaging for Diagnosis and Prediction of Extension of Disease
Bazot, M., Darai, E., Hourani, R., Thomassin, I., Cortez, A., Uzan, S., & Buy, J.-N. (2004) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2322030762 · Cited by 580
Imaging modalities for the non-invasive diagnosis of endometriosis
Nisenblat, V., Bossuyt, P. M., Farquhar, C., Johnson, N., & Hull, M. L. (2016) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd009591.pub2 · Cited by 538
Bazot, M., Lafont, C., Rouzier, R., Roseau, G., Thomassin-Naggara, I., & Daraï, E. (2009) · Fertility and Sterility · doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.09.005 · Cited by 434
Bowel Endometriosis: Presentation, Diagnosis, and Treatment
Remorgida, V., Ferrero, S., Fulcheri, E., Ragni, N., & Martin, D. C. (2007) · Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey · doi:10.1097/01.ogx.0000268688.55653.5c · Cited by 329
Diagnosis of endometriosis with imaging: a review
Kinkel, K., Frei, K. A., Balleyguier, C., & Chapron, C. (2006) · European Radiology · doi:10.1007/s00330-005-2882-y · Cited by 321
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Kinkel, K.
- Venue
- Human Reproduction
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1999-04-01
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1080-1086
- ISSN
- 0268-1161 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2350
- OpenAlex
- W2141000441
- Cited by
- 238
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 7.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Magnetic resonance imaging characteristics of deep endometriosis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/humrep/14.4.1080
- The paper
- Kinkel, K. (1999). Magnetic resonance imaging characteristics of deep endometriosis. Human Reproduction. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/14.4.1080
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.