Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 518

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

Comparison between clinical examination, transvaginal sonography and magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of deep endometriosis

Abrao, M. S., Goncalves, M. O. d. C., Dias, J. A., Podgaec, S., Chamie, L. P., Blasbalg, R.·2007·Human Reproduction

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Deeply infiltrating endometriosis affecting the retrocervical region and the rectosigmoid generally requires surgical treatment. Clinical examination, transvaginal ultrasonography (TVUS) and pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are useful in the preoperative diagnosis of the involvement of these sites. The objective of this study was to evaluate the capacity of digital vaginal examination, TVUS and MRI to diagnose rectosigmoid and retrocervical involvement. METHODS: A total of 104 patients with clinically suspected endometriosis were submitted to clinical examination, pelvic MRI and TVUS until 3 months prior to videolaparoscopy and the findings of these methods were matched with histopathological confirmation of endometriosis. RESULTS: Endometriosis was histologically confirmed in 98 of 104 (94.2%) patients. With respect to the rectosigmoid and retrocervical sites, respectively, digital vaginal examination had a sensitivity of 72 and 68%, specificity of 54 and 46%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 63 and 45%, negative predictive value (NPV) of 64 and 69% and accuracy of 63 and 55%. For TVUS, sensitivity was 98 and 95%, specificity 100 and 98%, PPV 100 and 98%, NPV 98 and 97% and accuracy 99 and 97%. MRI had a sensitivity of 83 and 76%, specificity of 98 and 68%, PPV of 98 and 61%, NPV of 85 and 81% and accuracy of 90 and 71%. CONCLUSIONS: TVUS had better sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy in cases of deep retrocervical and rectosigmoid endometriosis when compared with MRI and digital vaginal examination, confirming that it is an important preoperative examination for the definition of surgical strategies.

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/dem187

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

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 518

Metadata

Authors
Abrao, M. S., Goncalves, M. O. D. C., Dias, J. A., Podgaec, S., Chamie, L. P., & Blasbalg, R.
Venue
Human Reproduction
Published
2007-10-18
Volume
22
Issue
12
Pages
3092-3097
ISSN
  • 0268-1161 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2350
OpenAlex
W2134618546
Cited by
518
References
1
FWCI
22.39
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: Comparison between clinical examination, transvaginal sonography and magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of deep endometriosis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/humrep/dem187
The paper
Abrao, M. S., Goncalves, M. O. D. C., Dias, J. A., Podgaec, S., Chamie, L. P., & Blasbalg, R. (2007). Comparison between clinical examination, transvaginal sonography and magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of deep endometriosis. Human Reproduction. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dem187

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.