ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Fibroids
other
OA: closed
public-domain-us
AI-generated summary
The ACR Appropriateness Criteria provide evidence-based guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment, and surveillance of uterine fibroids using imaging modalities like ultrasound and MRI.
One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works
Abstract
Uterine fibroids (leiomyomas or myomas) are the most common neoplasm of the uterus. Though incompletely understood, fibroid etiology is multifactorial, a combination of genetic alterations and endocrine, autocrine, environmental, and other factors such as race, age, parity, and body mass index. Black women have greater than an 80% incidence of fibroids by age 50, whereas White women have an incidence approaching 70%. Fibroid symptoms are protean, and menorrhagia is most frequent. The societal economic burden of symptomatic fibroids is large, 5.9 to 34.3 billion dollars annually. There are a variety of treatment options for women with symptomatic fibroids ranging from medical therapy to hysterectomy. Myomectomy and uterine fibroid embolization are the most common uterine sparing therapies. Pelvic ultrasound (transabdominal and transvaginal) with Doppler and MRI with and without intravenous contrast are the best imaging modalities for the initial diagnosis of fibroids, the initial treatment of known fibroids, and for surveillance or posttreatment imaging. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer-reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances in which peer-reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.
My notes (saved in your browser only)
MeSH descriptors
Citation neighborhood (no data yet)
We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. The paper's references may be in our DB but unresolved to ``paper_id`` (resolution happens at ingest when the cited DOI matches a row we already have). Run the cross-source citation reconcile pass to retry.
Source provenance
- europepmc
- last seen: 2026-06-04T01:30:01.192114+00:00
- pubmed
- last seen: 2026-06-04T00:34:19.035172+00:00
- unpaywall
- last seen: 2026-05-15T02:00:00.661756+00:00
License: public-domain-us
· commercial use OK
· attribution required
Courtesy of the U.S. National Library of Medicine
Courtesy of the U.S. National Library of Medicine