The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Diagnosis of uterine anomalies: relative accuracy of MR imaging, endovaginal sonography, and hysterosalpingography.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare the relative accuracy of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging (n = 26), endovaginal sonography (EVS) (n = 14), and hysterosalpingography (HSG) (n = 20) in the classification of müllerian duct anomalies in 26 patients. There were 24 cases of surgically proved anomaly, and two patients had normal uteri (one with a vaginal septum). MR imaging allowed diagnosis of 24 of 24 cases (accuracy, 100%), and EVS was correct in 11 of 12 cases (accuracy, 92%). HSG was correct in only four cases. In the diagnosis of septate uterus, MR imaging demonstrated a sensitivity and specificity of 100% and EVS demonstrated a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 80%. Both MR imaging and EVS demonstrated a sensitivity and specificity of 100% in distinguishing those anomalies that did not require surgery. The high accuracy of MR imaging and EVS permit noninvasive differentiation of uterine anomalies and can spare women diagnostic laparoscopy, promoting cost-effective diagnosis.
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
Cited by
Chan, Y. Y., Jayaprakasan, K., Zamora, J., Thornton, J. G., Raine-Fenning, N., & Coomarasamy, A. (2011) · Human Reproduction Update · doi:10.1093/humupd/dmr028 · Cited by 758
Saravelos, S. H., Cocksedge, K. A., & Li, T.-C. (2008) · Human Reproduction Update · doi:10.1093/humupd/dmn018 · Cited by 683
Reproductive outcomes in women with congenital uterine anomalies: a systematic review
Chan, Y. Y., Jayaprakasan, K., Tan, A., Thornton, J. G., Coomarasamy, A., & Raine‐Fenning, N. J. (2011) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.10056 · Cited by 564
Taylor, E., & Gomel, V. (2008) · Fertility and Sterility · doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.09.069 · Cited by 384
The Thessaloniki ESHRE/ESGE consensus on diagnosis of female genital anomalies
Grimbizis, G. F., Di Spiezio Sardo, A., Saravelos, S. H., Gordts, S., Exacoustos, C., Van Schoubroeck, D., Bermejo, C., Amso, N. N., Nargund, G., Timmerman, D., et al. (2016) · Human Reproduction · doi:10.1093/humrep/dev264 · Cited by 232
Metadata
- Authors
- Pellerito, J. S., McCarthy, S. M., Doyle, M. B., Glickman, M. G., & DeCherney, A. H.
- Venue
- Radiology
- Published
- 1992-06
- Volume
- 183
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 795-800
- ISSN
- 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-1315
- OpenAlex
- W2009593850
- Cited by
- 459
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 9.74
- 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: Diagnosis of uterine anomalies: relative accuracy of MR imaging, endovaginal sonography, and hysterosalpingography. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1148/radiology.183.3.1584936
- The paper
- Pellerito, J. S., McCarthy, S. M., Doyle, M. B., Glickman, M. G., & DeCherney, A. H. (1992). Diagnosis of uterine anomalies: relative accuracy of MR imaging, endovaginal sonography, and hysterosalpingography. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.183.3.1584936
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.
