Ultrasound scan and magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: systematic review comparing test accuracy

References

• Azziz R. Adenomyosis: current perspectives. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 1989;16:221–35.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lone FW, Balogun M, Khan KS. Adenomyosis: not such an elusive diagnosis any longer. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2006;26:225–8.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Devlieger R, D'Hooghe T, Timmerman D. Uterine adenomyosis in the infertility clinic. Hum Reprod Update. 2003;9:139–47.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Honore LH, Cumming DC, Dunlop DL, Scott JZ. Uterine adenomyoma associated with infertility. A report of three cases. J Reprod Med. 1988;33:331–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Botsis D, Kassanos D, Antoniou G, Pyrgiotis E, Karakitsos P, Kalogirou D. Adenomyoma and leiomyoma: differential diagnosis with transvaginal sonography. J Clin Ultrasound. 1998;26:21–5.
   Google Scholar
• Ascher SM, Arnold LL, Patt RH, Schruefer JJ, Bagley AS, Semelka RCR, Adenomyosis: prospective comparison of MR imaging and transvaginal sonography. Radiology. 1994;190:803–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Imaoka I, Ascher SM, Sugimura K, Takahashi K, Li H, Cuomo F, MR imaging of diffuse adenomyosis changes after GnRH analog therapy. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2002;15:285–90.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atri M, Reinhold C, Mehio AR, Chapman WB, Bret PM. Adenomyosis: US features with histologic correlation in an in vitro study. Radiology. 2000;215:783–90.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andreotti RF, Fleischer AC. The sonographic diagnosis of adenomyosis. Ultrasound Quart. 2005;21:167–70.
   Google Scholar
• Reinhold C, Tafazoli F, Mehio A, Wang L, Atri M, Siegelman ES, Uterine adenomyosis: endovaginal US and MR imaging features with histopathologic correlation. Radiographics. 1999;19(suppl 1):147–60.
   Google Scholar
• Bazot M, Darai E, Rouger J, Detchev R, Cortez A, Uzan S. Limitations of transvaginal sonography for the diagnosis of adenomyosis, with histopathological correlation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2002;20:605–11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bazot M, Cortez A, Darai E, Rouger J, Chopier J, Antoine JM, Ultrasonography compared with magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: correlation with histopathology. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:2427–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vercellini P, Cortesi I, De GO, Merlo D, Carinelli SG, Crosignani PG. Transvaginal ultrasonography versus uterine needle biopsy in the diagnosis of diffuse adenomyosis. Hum Reprod. 1998;13:2884–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mark AS, Hricak H, Heinrichs LW, Hendrickson MR, Winkler ML, Bachica JA, Adenomyosis and leiomyoma: differential diagnosis with MR imaging. Radiology. 1987;163:527–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reinhold C, Tafazoli F, Wang L. Imaging features of adenomyosis. Hum Reprod Update. 1998;4:337–49.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tafazoli F, Reinhold C. Uterine adenomyosis: current concepts in imaging. Semin Ultrasound CT MRI. 1999;20:267–77.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Togashi K, Ozasa H, Konishi I, Itoh H, Nishimura K, Fujisawa I, Enlarged uterus: differentiation between adenomyosis and leiomyoma with MR imaging. Radiology. 1989;171:531–4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hricak H, Alpers C, Crooks LE, Sheldon PE. Magnetic resonance imaging of the female pelvis: initial experience. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1983;141:1119–28.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kier R. Magnetic resonance imaging of the uterus. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 1994;2:189–210.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Reinhold C, McCarthy S, Bret PM, Mehio A, Atri M, Zakarian R, Diffuse adenomyosis: comparison of endovaginal US and MR imaging with histopathologic correlation. Radiology. 1996;199:151–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Togashi K, Nishimura K, Itoh K, Fujisawa I, Noma S, Kanaoka M, Adenomyosis: diagnosis with MR imaging. Radiology. 1988;166(1 Pt 1):111–14.
   Google Scholar
• Khan KS, Dinnes J, Kleijnen J. Systematic reviews to evaluate diagnostic tests. Eur J obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2001;95:6–11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deeks J. Systematic reviews in health care: systematic reviews of diagnostic and screening tests. BMJ. 2001;323:157–62.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khan KS, Ter Riet G, Glanville J, Sowden AJ, Kleijnen J. Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness. CRD's Guidance for Carrying Out or Commissioning Reviews. 2nd edn. NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD), University of York, 2001, CRD Report No. 4 York, ISBN 1900640201, URL: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/report4.htm
   Google Scholar
• Irwig L, Tosteson AN, Gatsonis C. Guidelines for meta-analyses evaluating diagnostic tests [see comment]. Ann Intern Med. 1994;120:667–76.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whiting P, Rutjes A, Reitsma J, Kleijnen J. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003;3:25.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bossuyt PM, Reistma JB, Burns DE, Gastsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. BMJ. 2003;326:41–4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Honest H, Khan KS. Reporting of measures of accuracy in systematic reviews of diagnostic literature. BMC Health Serv Res. 2002;2:4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khan KS, Khan SF, Nwosu CR, Arnott N, Chien PF. Misleading authors' inferences in obstetric diagnostic test literature. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;181:112–15.
   Google Scholar
• Jaeschke R, Guyatt GH, Sackett DL. Users' guides to the medical literature. III. How to use an article about a diagnostic test. B. What are the results and will they help me in caring for my patients? The Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 1994;271:703–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vamvakas EC. Meta-analyses of studies of the diagnostic accuracy of laboratory tests. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1998;122:675–86.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kardaun JWPF, Kardaun OJWF. Comparative diagnostic performance of three radiological procedures for the detection of lumbar disk herniation. Methods Inf Med. 1990;29:12–22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Irwig L, Macaskill P, Glasziou P, Fahey M. Metaanalytic methods for diagnostic test accuracy. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993;48:119–30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Midgette AS, Stukel TA, Littenberg B. A metaanalytic method for summarizing diagnostic test performances: receiver-operating-characteristic-summary point estimates. Med Decis Mak. 1993;13:253–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moses LE, Shapiro DE, Littenberg B. Combining independent studies of a diagnostic tests into a summary ROC curve: data-analytic approaches and some additional considerations. Stat Med. 1993;12:1293–316.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanley JA. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Curves. In: Armitage P, Colton T (eds). Encyclopedia of biostatistics. Chichester: Wiley, 1998. pp. 3738–45.
   Google Scholar
• Beck JR, Shultz EK. The use of relative operating characteristic (ROC) curves in test performance evaluation. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1986;110:13–19.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Metz CE, Herman BA, Shen JH. Maximum likelihood estimation of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves from continuously-distributed data. Stat Med. 1998;17:1033–53.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zamora J, Abraira V, Muriel A. Meta-disc: a software for meta-analysis of test accuracy data. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:31.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Korczynski J, Sobkiewicz S. Adenomyosis. Diagnostic technique and treatment. Ginekologia Polska. 2001;72:317–21.
   Google Scholar
• Kepkep K, Tuncay YA, Goynumer G, Tutal E. Transvaginal sonography in the diganosis of adenomyosis: which findings are most accurate? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2007;30:341–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang R-T, Chou C-Y, Chang C-H, Yu C-H, Huang S-C, Yao B-L. Differentiation between adenomyoma and leiomyoma with transvaginal ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1995;5:47–50.
   Google Scholar
• Chiang CH, Chang MY, Hsu JJ, Chiu TH, Lee KF, Hsieh TT, Tumor vascular pattern and blood flow impedance in the differential diagnosis of leiomyoma and adenomyosis by color Doppler sonography. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1999;16:268–75.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siedler D, Laing FC, Jeffrey Jr RB, Wing VW. Uterine adenomyosis. A difficult sonographic diagnosis. J Ultrasound Med. 1987;6:345–9.
   Google Scholar
• Reinhold C, Atri M, Mehio A, Zakarian R, Aldis AE, Bret PM. Diffuse uterine adenomyosis: morphologic criteria and diagnostic accuracy of endovaginal sonography. Radiology. 1995;197:609–14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phillips DR, Nathanson HG, Milim SJ, Haselkorn JS. Magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosing adenomyomata. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 1996;3:245–50.
   Google Scholar
• Fedele L, Bianchi S, Dorta M, Arcaini L, Zanotti F, Carinelli S. Transvaginal ultrasonography in the diagnosis of diffuse adenomyosis. Fertil Steril. 1992;58:94–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fedele L, Bianchi S, Dorta M, Zanotti F, Brioschi D, Carinelli S. Transvaginal ultrasonography in the differential diagnosis of adenomyoma versus leiomyoma. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992;167:603–6.
   Google Scholar
• Dueholm M, Lundorf E, Sorensen JS, Ledertoug S, Olesen F, Laursen H. Reproducibility of evaluation of the uterus by transvaginal sonography, hysterosonographic examination, hysteroscopy and magnetic resonance imaging. Hum Reprod. 2002;17:195–200.
   Google Scholar
• Dueholm M, Lundorf E, Hansen ES, Sorensen JS, Ledertoug S, Olesen F. Magnetic resonance imaging and transvaginal ultrasonography for the diagnosis of adenomyosis. Fertil Steril. 2001;76:588–94.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brosens JJ, de Souza NM, Barker FG, Paraschos T, Winston RML. Endovaginal ultrasonography in the diagnosis of adenomyosis uteri: idetifying the predictive characteristics. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1995;102:471–4.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bromley B, Shipp TD, Benacerraf B. Adenomyosis: sonographic findings and diagnostic accuracy. J Ultrasound Med. 2000;19:529–34.
   Google Scholar
• Bazot M, Darai E, Clement de GS, Boudghene F, Uzan S, Le Blanche AF. Fast breath-hold T2-weighted MR imaging reduces interobserver variability in the diagnosis of adenomyosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;180:1291–6.
   Google Scholar
• Atzori E, Tronci C, Sionis L. Transvaginal ultrasound in the diagnosis of diffuse adenomyosis. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 1996;42:39–41.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balogun M. Imaging diagnosis of adenomyosis. Rev Gynaecol Perin Pract. 2006;6:63–9.
   Google Scholar
• Dueholm M. Transvaginal ultrasound for diagnosis of adenomyosis: a review. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2006;20:569–82.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meredith SM, Sanchez-Ramos L, Kaunitz AM. Diagnostic accuracy of transvaginal sonography for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;201:107 e1–6.
   Google Scholar
• Khan KS, Chien PF. Evaluation of a clinical test. I: assessment of reliability. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2001;108:562–7.
   Google Scholar
• Volkers NA, Hehenkamp WJ, Spijkerboer AM, Moolhuijzen AD, Birnie E, Ankum WM, MR reproducibility in the assessment of uterine fibroids for patients scheduled for uterine artery embolization. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2008;31:260–8.
   Google Scholar
• Chien PF, Khan KS. Evaluation of a clinical test. II: assessment of validity. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2001;108:568–72.
   Google Scholar
• Alexander M, Hedvig H, LeRoy WH. Adenomyosis and leiyomyoma: differential diagnosis with Mr imaging. Radiology. 1987;163:527–9.
   Google Scholar