ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2025
Microvascular flow imaging for detection of endometrial malignancy: comparison with color Doppler imaging.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and clinical evaluation of an ultrasound-based predictive model for early diagnosis of endometrial cancer.Medicine · 2026Article
- The Quantification Paradox in Gynecologic Color Doppler Ultrasound: From Spectral Indices to Microvascular Imaging and Artificial Intelligence.International journal of women's health · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Comprehensive sonographic evaluation of pre- and postmenopausal women with abnormal uterine bleeding is essential for accurate diagnosis and the optimization of curative outcomes for endometrial malignancy. Microvascular flow imaging (MVFI), a state-of-the-art Doppler technique, enables high-resolution, noninvasive mapping of tumor-specific neovascularity that critically drives the initiation, growth, and progression of endometrial malignancy. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of MVFI with that of conventional color Doppler imaging (CDI) for detecting endometrial malignancy using histopathology as the reference standard. Methods: From June 2023 to October 2024, 283 females with abnormal uterine bleeding over the age of 40 years were enrolled in this prospective single-center study. Transvaginal grayscale ultrasound imaging was performed with a HERA W10 system (Samsung Medison Co., Ltd.), with standardized documentation of endometrial features. Endometrial vascularity was subsequently evaluated through tandem CDI and MVFI assessments. Two senior radiologists independently assessed endometrial vascularity using International Endometrial Tumor Analysis (IETA) consensus criteria with a 4-point scale. Intra- and interobserver agreement were evaluated through sequential and reversed-order interpretations. All imaging results were validated against histopathological outcomes as the reference standard. Diagnostic performance was evaluated for (I) MVFI and CDI individually and for (II) integrated models combining vascular detection techniques with grayscale features for endometrial malignancy detection. Results: With histological outcomes used as the reference standards, there were 32 malignant and 251 nonmalignant endometrial specimens. MVFI yielded significantly higher vascular scores than did CDI (median score: 2 Conclusions: MVFI demonstrated significantly higher diagnostic performance than did CDI for the detection of endometrial malignancy; MVFI is thus a promising adjunctive technique for precisely diagnosing endometrial malignancy in females with abnormal uterine bleeding.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.