Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 509

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

Ultrasonography compared with magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: correlation with histopathology

Bazot, Marc, Cortez, Annie, Darai, Emile, Rouger, Jérome, Chopier, Jocelyne, Antoine, Jean-Marie, Uzan, Serge·2001·Human Reproduction

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to compare the accuracy of transabdominal (TAUS) and transvaginal sonography (TVUS) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the diagnosis of adenomyosis, and to correlate imaging with histological findings. METHODS: In a prospective study, 120 consecutive patients referred for hysterectomy underwent TAUS, TVUS and MRI. Results of these examinations were interpreted blindly to histopathological findings. RESULTS: Histological prevalence of adenomyosis and leiomyomas was 33.0 and 47.5% respectively. Adenomyotic uteri were accompanied by additional pelvic disorders in 82.5% of cases. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of TAUS and TVUS were 32.5 and 65.0%, 95.0 and 97.5%, 76.4 and 92.8%, and 73.8 and 88.8% respectively. Myometrial cyst was the most sensitive and specific TVUS criterion. In MRI, the presence of a high-signal-intensity myometrial spot was as specific but less sensitive than a maximal junctional zone thickness (JZ(max)) >12 mm and a JZ(max) to myometrial thickness ratio >40%. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of MRI were 77.5, 92.5, 83.8 and 89.2% respectively. No difference in accuracy was found between TVUS and MRI, but sensitivity was lower with sonography in women with associated myomas. CONCLUSIONS: TVUS is as efficient as MRI for the diagnosis of adenomyosis in women without myoma, while MRI could be recommended for women with associated leiomyoma.

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 · 10.1093/humrep/16.11.2427

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

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

  • Uterine junctional zone, function and disease

    Brosens, J. J., de Souza, N. M., & Barker, F. G. (1995) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(95)91387-4 · Cited by 215 · cited 5×

    “It is difficult to compare our data with those of previous studies, in which the main criterion used for adenomyosis was an alteration of myometrial echotexture, not myometrial cyst (Ascher et al., 1994; Brosens et al., 1995b; Reinhold et al., 1995, 1996; Vercellini et al., 1998).”
    BackgroundResultInfluential

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 509

Metadata

Authors
Bazot, M., Cortez, A., Darai, E., Rouger, J., Chopier, J., Antoine, J.-M., & Uzan, S.
Venue
Human Reproduction
Published
2001-11
Volume
16
Issue
11
Pages
2427-2433
ISSN
  • 0268-1161 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2350
OpenAlex
W2154062513
Cited by
509
References
1
FWCI
5.51
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: Ultrasonography compared with magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: correlation with histopathology. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/humrep/16.11.2427
The paper
Bazot, M., Cortez, A., Darai, E., Rouger, J., Chopier, J., Antoine, J.-M., & Uzan, S. (2001). Ultrasonography compared with magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: correlation with histopathology. Human Reproduction. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/16.11.2427

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.