Loading…

Accuracy of three‐dimensional ultrasound compared with magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosis of Müllerian duct anomalies using ESHRE–ESGE consensus on the classification of congenital anomalies of the female genital tract

Objective To establish the accuracy of three‐dimensional ultrasound (3D‐US), compared with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), for diagnosing uterine anomalies, using the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology–European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESHRE–ESGE) consensus on the c...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology 2015-11, Vol.46 (5), p.616-622
Main Authors: Graupera, B., Pascual, M. A., Hereter, L., Browne, J. L., Úbeda, B., Rodríguez, I., Pedrero, C.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3885-49710cf71c911fb478b2a4bc169b885e17e82bf8fa5fd403e149e9771e54b6c33
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3885-49710cf71c911fb478b2a4bc169b885e17e82bf8fa5fd403e149e9771e54b6c33
container_end_page 622
container_issue 5
container_start_page 616
container_title Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology
container_volume 46
creator Graupera, B.
Pascual, M. A.
Hereter, L.
Browne, J. L.
Úbeda, B.
Rodríguez, I.
Pedrero, C.
description Objective To establish the accuracy of three‐dimensional ultrasound (3D‐US), compared with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), for diagnosing uterine anomalies, using the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology–European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESHRE–ESGE) consensus on the classification of congenital anomalies of the female genital tract. Methods Sixty women with uterine anomalies suspected after examination by conventional two‐dimensional ultrasound were evaluated with 3D‐US and MRI. These data were analyzed retrospectively to confirm the presence and type of uterine malformation in accordance with the ESHRE–ESGE consensus. Sensitivity, specificity and positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values were calculated, using MRI as the gold standard, and agreement between the two methods was evaluated by kappa index. Results Compared with MRI, for the diagnosis of normal uteri, 3D‐US had a sensitivity of 83.3%, specificity of 100%, PPV of 100%, NPV of 98.2% and kappa index of 0.900. For dysmorphic uteri and for hemi‐uteri, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV were all 100%, and kappa was 1.00. For septate uteri, the sensitivity was 100%, specificity was 88.9%, PPV was 95.5%, NPV was 100% and kappa was 0.918. For bicorporeal uteri, the sensitivity was 83.3%, specificity was 100%, PPV was 100%, NPV was 98.2% and kappa was 0.900. Conclusions 3D‐US is highly accurate for diagnosing uterine malformations, having a good level of agreement with MRI in the classification of different anomaly types based on the ESHRE–ESGE consensus. Copyright © 2015 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
doi_str_mv 10.1002/uog.14825
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1730025834</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1730025834</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3885-49710cf71c911fb478b2a4bc169b885e17e82bf8fa5fd403e149e9771e54b6c33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kcFu1DAQhiMEokvhwAsgS1zoYVs7ceL4WFVhi1RUidJz5DjjravEXuxY1d76CEi8Tm-8ScWDMOm2ICFxsmbm8z-_5s-yt4weMkrzo-TXh4zXefksWzBeySUVtHyeLais6FJUMt_LXsV4TSmteFG9zPbyspK0oGKR_TrWOgWlt8QbMl0FgPvb770dwUXrnRpIGqagok-uJ9qPGxWgJzd2uiKjWjuYrCYBIpJOA7HYs25NrCO9xbGPNs66n3_eDQMEq7Cf9ESU86MaLESS4sw3F6dfmvvbH83FqsEtLuL2hD8dOgKiBxWjNVarCS3NeoiswdkJ7f2VevAPxADWQJ7maF5Pr7MXRg0R3jy--9nlx-bryeny7Hz16eT4bKmLui6XXApGtRFMS8ZMx0Xd5Yp3mlWywzkwAXXemdqo0vScFsC4BCkEg5J3lS6K_ezDTncT_LcEcWpHGzUMg3LgU2yZKDCusi44ou__Qa99CnjwmcprmZesFkgd7CgdfIwBTLsJeOSwbRlt5-hbjL59iB7Zd4-KqRuh_0M-ZY3A0Q64sQNs_6_UXp6vdpK_AUBfv94</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1728925187</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Accuracy of three‐dimensional ultrasound compared with magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosis of Müllerian duct anomalies using ESHRE–ESGE consensus on the classification of congenital anomalies of the female genital tract</title><source>Wiley-Blackwell Read &amp; Publish Collection</source><creator>Graupera, B. ; Pascual, M. A. ; Hereter, L. ; Browne, J. L. ; Úbeda, B. ; Rodríguez, I. ; Pedrero, C.</creator><creatorcontrib>Graupera, B. ; Pascual, M. A. ; Hereter, L. ; Browne, J. L. ; Úbeda, B. ; Rodríguez, I. ; Pedrero, C.</creatorcontrib><description>Objective To establish the accuracy of three‐dimensional ultrasound (3D‐US), compared with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), for diagnosing uterine anomalies, using the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology–European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESHRE–ESGE) consensus on the classification of congenital anomalies of the female genital tract. Methods Sixty women with uterine anomalies suspected after examination by conventional two‐dimensional ultrasound were evaluated with 3D‐US and MRI. These data were analyzed retrospectively to confirm the presence and type of uterine malformation in accordance with the ESHRE–ESGE consensus. Sensitivity, specificity and positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values were calculated, using MRI as the gold standard, and agreement between the two methods was evaluated by kappa index. Results Compared with MRI, for the diagnosis of normal uteri, 3D‐US had a sensitivity of 83.3%, specificity of 100%, PPV of 100%, NPV of 98.2% and kappa index of 0.900. For dysmorphic uteri and for hemi‐uteri, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV were all 100%, and kappa was 1.00. For septate uteri, the sensitivity was 100%, specificity was 88.9%, PPV was 95.5%, NPV was 100% and kappa was 0.918. For bicorporeal uteri, the sensitivity was 83.3%, specificity was 100%, PPV was 100%, NPV was 98.2% and kappa was 0.900. Conclusions 3D‐US is highly accurate for diagnosing uterine malformations, having a good level of agreement with MRI in the classification of different anomaly types based on the ESHRE–ESGE consensus. Copyright © 2015 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0960-7692</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1469-0705</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/uog.14825</identifier><identifier>PMID: 25690307</identifier><identifier>CODEN: UOGYFJ</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Chichester, UK: John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd</publisher><subject>3D‐US ; Cervix Uteri - abnormalities ; Cervix Uteri - pathology ; congenital uterine anomalies ; Female ; Humans ; magnetic resonance imaging ; Mullerian Ducts - abnormalities ; Mullerian Ducts - pathology ; Müllerian duct anomalies ; Reproducibility of Results ; Retrospective Studies ; Societies, Medical ; three‐dimensional ultrasonography ; Urogenital Abnormalities - diagnosis ; Urogenital Abnormalities - pathology ; uterine abnormalities ; uterine malformations ; Uterus - abnormalities ; Uterus - pathology ; Vagina - abnormalities ; Vagina - pathology</subject><ispartof>Ultrasound in obstetrics &amp; gynecology, 2015-11, Vol.46 (5), p.616-622</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2015 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2015 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3885-49710cf71c911fb478b2a4bc169b885e17e82bf8fa5fd403e149e9771e54b6c33</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3885-49710cf71c911fb478b2a4bc169b885e17e82bf8fa5fd403e149e9771e54b6c33</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25690307$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Graupera, B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pascual, M. A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hereter, L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Browne, J. L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Úbeda, B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rodríguez, I.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pedrero, C.</creatorcontrib><title>Accuracy of three‐dimensional ultrasound compared with magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosis of Müllerian duct anomalies using ESHRE–ESGE consensus on the classification of congenital anomalies of the female genital tract</title><title>Ultrasound in obstetrics &amp; gynecology</title><addtitle>Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol</addtitle><description>Objective To establish the accuracy of three‐dimensional ultrasound (3D‐US), compared with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), for diagnosing uterine anomalies, using the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology–European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESHRE–ESGE) consensus on the classification of congenital anomalies of the female genital tract. Methods Sixty women with uterine anomalies suspected after examination by conventional two‐dimensional ultrasound were evaluated with 3D‐US and MRI. These data were analyzed retrospectively to confirm the presence and type of uterine malformation in accordance with the ESHRE–ESGE consensus. Sensitivity, specificity and positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values were calculated, using MRI as the gold standard, and agreement between the two methods was evaluated by kappa index. Results Compared with MRI, for the diagnosis of normal uteri, 3D‐US had a sensitivity of 83.3%, specificity of 100%, PPV of 100%, NPV of 98.2% and kappa index of 0.900. For dysmorphic uteri and for hemi‐uteri, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV were all 100%, and kappa was 1.00. For septate uteri, the sensitivity was 100%, specificity was 88.9%, PPV was 95.5%, NPV was 100% and kappa was 0.918. For bicorporeal uteri, the sensitivity was 83.3%, specificity was 100%, PPV was 100%, NPV was 98.2% and kappa was 0.900. Conclusions 3D‐US is highly accurate for diagnosing uterine malformations, having a good level of agreement with MRI in the classification of different anomaly types based on the ESHRE–ESGE consensus. Copyright © 2015 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd.</description><subject>3D‐US</subject><subject>Cervix Uteri - abnormalities</subject><subject>Cervix Uteri - pathology</subject><subject>congenital uterine anomalies</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>magnetic resonance imaging</subject><subject>Mullerian Ducts - abnormalities</subject><subject>Mullerian Ducts - pathology</subject><subject>Müllerian duct anomalies</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Societies, Medical</subject><subject>three‐dimensional ultrasonography</subject><subject>Urogenital Abnormalities - diagnosis</subject><subject>Urogenital Abnormalities - pathology</subject><subject>uterine abnormalities</subject><subject>uterine malformations</subject><subject>Uterus - abnormalities</subject><subject>Uterus - pathology</subject><subject>Vagina - abnormalities</subject><subject>Vagina - pathology</subject><issn>0960-7692</issn><issn>1469-0705</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kcFu1DAQhiMEokvhwAsgS1zoYVs7ceL4WFVhi1RUidJz5DjjravEXuxY1d76CEi8Tm-8ScWDMOm2ICFxsmbm8z-_5s-yt4weMkrzo-TXh4zXefksWzBeySUVtHyeLais6FJUMt_LXsV4TSmteFG9zPbyspK0oGKR_TrWOgWlt8QbMl0FgPvb770dwUXrnRpIGqagok-uJ9qPGxWgJzd2uiKjWjuYrCYBIpJOA7HYs25NrCO9xbGPNs66n3_eDQMEq7Cf9ESU86MaLESS4sw3F6dfmvvbH83FqsEtLuL2hD8dOgKiBxWjNVarCS3NeoiswdkJ7f2VevAPxADWQJ7maF5Pr7MXRg0R3jy--9nlx-bryeny7Hz16eT4bKmLui6XXApGtRFMS8ZMx0Xd5Yp3mlWywzkwAXXemdqo0vScFsC4BCkEg5J3lS6K_ezDTncT_LcEcWpHGzUMg3LgU2yZKDCusi44ou__Qa99CnjwmcprmZesFkgd7CgdfIwBTLsJeOSwbRlt5-hbjL59iB7Zd4-KqRuh_0M-ZY3A0Q64sQNs_6_UXp6vdpK_AUBfv94</recordid><startdate>201511</startdate><enddate>201511</enddate><creator>Graupera, B.</creator><creator>Pascual, M. A.</creator><creator>Hereter, L.</creator><creator>Browne, J. L.</creator><creator>Úbeda, B.</creator><creator>Rodríguez, I.</creator><creator>Pedrero, C.</creator><general>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201511</creationdate><title>Accuracy of three‐dimensional ultrasound compared with magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosis of Müllerian duct anomalies using ESHRE–ESGE consensus on the classification of congenital anomalies of the female genital tract</title><author>Graupera, B. ; Pascual, M. A. ; Hereter, L. ; Browne, J. L. ; Úbeda, B. ; Rodríguez, I. ; Pedrero, C.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3885-49710cf71c911fb478b2a4bc169b885e17e82bf8fa5fd403e149e9771e54b6c33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>3D‐US</topic><topic>Cervix Uteri - abnormalities</topic><topic>Cervix Uteri - pathology</topic><topic>congenital uterine anomalies</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>magnetic resonance imaging</topic><topic>Mullerian Ducts - abnormalities</topic><topic>Mullerian Ducts - pathology</topic><topic>Müllerian duct anomalies</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Societies, Medical</topic><topic>three‐dimensional ultrasonography</topic><topic>Urogenital Abnormalities - diagnosis</topic><topic>Urogenital Abnormalities - pathology</topic><topic>uterine abnormalities</topic><topic>uterine malformations</topic><topic>Uterus - abnormalities</topic><topic>Uterus - pathology</topic><topic>Vagina - abnormalities</topic><topic>Vagina - pathology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Graupera, B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pascual, M. A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hereter, L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Browne, J. L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Úbeda, B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rodríguez, I.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pedrero, C.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Ultrasound in obstetrics &amp; gynecology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Graupera, B.</au><au>Pascual, M. A.</au><au>Hereter, L.</au><au>Browne, J. L.</au><au>Úbeda, B.</au><au>Rodríguez, I.</au><au>Pedrero, C.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Accuracy of three‐dimensional ultrasound compared with magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosis of Müllerian duct anomalies using ESHRE–ESGE consensus on the classification of congenital anomalies of the female genital tract</atitle><jtitle>Ultrasound in obstetrics &amp; gynecology</jtitle><addtitle>Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol</addtitle><date>2015-11</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>46</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>616</spage><epage>622</epage><pages>616-622</pages><issn>0960-7692</issn><eissn>1469-0705</eissn><coden>UOGYFJ</coden><abstract>Objective To establish the accuracy of three‐dimensional ultrasound (3D‐US), compared with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), for diagnosing uterine anomalies, using the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology–European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESHRE–ESGE) consensus on the classification of congenital anomalies of the female genital tract. Methods Sixty women with uterine anomalies suspected after examination by conventional two‐dimensional ultrasound were evaluated with 3D‐US and MRI. These data were analyzed retrospectively to confirm the presence and type of uterine malformation in accordance with the ESHRE–ESGE consensus. Sensitivity, specificity and positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values were calculated, using MRI as the gold standard, and agreement between the two methods was evaluated by kappa index. Results Compared with MRI, for the diagnosis of normal uteri, 3D‐US had a sensitivity of 83.3%, specificity of 100%, PPV of 100%, NPV of 98.2% and kappa index of 0.900. For dysmorphic uteri and for hemi‐uteri, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV were all 100%, and kappa was 1.00. For septate uteri, the sensitivity was 100%, specificity was 88.9%, PPV was 95.5%, NPV was 100% and kappa was 0.918. For bicorporeal uteri, the sensitivity was 83.3%, specificity was 100%, PPV was 100%, NPV was 98.2% and kappa was 0.900. Conclusions 3D‐US is highly accurate for diagnosing uterine malformations, having a good level of agreement with MRI in the classification of different anomaly types based on the ESHRE–ESGE consensus. Copyright © 2015 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd.</abstract><cop>Chichester, UK</cop><pub>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd</pub><pmid>25690307</pmid><doi>10.1002/uog.14825</doi><tpages>7</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0960-7692
ispartof Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology, 2015-11, Vol.46 (5), p.616-622
issn 0960-7692
1469-0705
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1730025834
source Wiley-Blackwell Read & Publish Collection
subjects 3D‐US
Cervix Uteri - abnormalities
Cervix Uteri - pathology
congenital uterine anomalies
Female
Humans
magnetic resonance imaging
Mullerian Ducts - abnormalities
Mullerian Ducts - pathology
Müllerian duct anomalies
Reproducibility of Results
Retrospective Studies
Societies, Medical
three‐dimensional ultrasonography
Urogenital Abnormalities - diagnosis
Urogenital Abnormalities - pathology
uterine abnormalities
uterine malformations
Uterus - abnormalities
Uterus - pathology
Vagina - abnormalities
Vagina - pathology
title Accuracy of three‐dimensional ultrasound compared with magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosis of Müllerian duct anomalies using ESHRE–ESGE consensus on the classification of congenital anomalies of the female genital tract
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T20%3A47%3A23IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Accuracy%20of%20three%E2%80%90dimensional%20ultrasound%20compared%20with%20magnetic%20resonance%20imaging%20in%20diagnosis%20of%20M%C3%BCllerian%20duct%20anomalies%20using%20ESHRE%E2%80%93ESGE%20consensus%20on%20the%20classification%20of%20congenital%20anomalies%20of%20the%20female%20genital%20tract&rft.jtitle=Ultrasound%20in%20obstetrics%20&%20gynecology&rft.au=Graupera,%20B.&rft.date=2015-11&rft.volume=46&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=616&rft.epage=622&rft.pages=616-622&rft.issn=0960-7692&rft.eissn=1469-0705&rft.coden=UOGYFJ&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/uog.14825&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1730025834%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3885-49710cf71c911fb478b2a4bc169b885e17e82bf8fa5fd403e149e9771e54b6c33%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1728925187&rft_id=info:pmid/25690307&rfr_iscdi=true