Journal of ultrasound · 2022
Diagnostic value and agreement of transrectal in comparison with transvaginal sonography among women with abnormal uterine bleeding.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Akbari Sene Azadeh, Farzaneh Farah, Mehrnami Afsaneh, Faizei Ali Mohammad, Alizadeh Ahad, Saadat Mostafavi Seyed Reza, Ghaffari Elnaz
Аннотация
AIMS: Transvaginal sonography (TVS) is not applicable for evaluating the endometrium in some cases with abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) such as virgin women. The aim of the present study was to investigate the diagnostic value of transrectal sonography (TRS), as a non-invasive alternative for TVS, among women with AUB.
METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, 40 women over 40 years of age with AUB first underwent TRS and then TVS. Endometrial biopsy was also performed as a gold standard method to evaluate endometrial pathologies. The findings of the two endometrial ultrasound methods were compared with the biopsy results. Also, the findings of the two methods were compared in terms of the agreement on other uterine markers and adnexal findings.
RESULTS: There was a high agreement between the findings of TVS and TRS for uterine size, endometrial thickness and homogeneity, endomyometrial junction, myometrial homogeneity, uterine lesions, uterine lesions size, ovarian size and ovarian echogenicity. When comparing the results of these two methods with biopsy findings, sensitivity, specificity as well as positive and negative predictive values of both methods were similar (82%, 100%, 100%, and 0%, respectively).
CONCLUSION: When it is not possible to use TVS in women with AUB, TRS is a suitable, non-invasive and inexpensive alternative method for evaluating the endometrium and other genital organs.
METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, 40 women over 40 years of age with AUB first underwent TRS and then TVS. Endometrial biopsy was also performed as a gold standard method to evaluate endometrial pathologies. The findings of the two endometrial ultrasound methods were compared with the biopsy results. Also, the findings of the two methods were compared in terms of the agreement on other uterine markers and adnexal findings.
RESULTS: There was a high agreement between the findings of TVS and TRS for uterine size, endometrial thickness and homogeneity, endomyometrial junction, myometrial homogeneity, uterine lesions, uterine lesions size, ovarian size and ovarian echogenicity. When comparing the results of these two methods with biopsy findings, sensitivity, specificity as well as positive and negative predictive values of both methods were similar (82%, 100%, 100%, and 0%, respectively).
CONCLUSION: When it is not possible to use TVS in women with AUB, TRS is a suitable, non-invasive and inexpensive alternative method for evaluating the endometrium and other genital organs.