Correction: Accuracy of transvaginal sonography versus magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of rectosigmoid endometriosis: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Moura APC, Ana Paula Carvalhal Moura, Helizabet Salomão Abdalla Ayroza Ribeiro, Ribeiro HSAA, Wanderley Marques Bernardo, Bernardo WM, Ricardo Santos Simões, Simões R, Ricardo Simões, Ulysses S Torres, Giuseppe D’Ippolito, Giuseppe D'Ippolito, Marc Bazot, Bazot M, Paulo Ayroza Ribeiro, Paulo Augusto Ayrosa Galvão Ribeiro, Ribeiro PAAG
PloS one · 2019 · vol. 14(8) , pp. e0221499 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0221499 · PMID:31419258 · PMC6697323 · W3174713709
erratum OA: gold CC0 ⤵ 6 in-corpus citations
📄 Open PDF Full text JSON View on OpenAlex View on PubMed View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by claude@2026-06, 2026-06-13 ⓘ

This meta-analysis found that transvaginal sonography had a pooled sensitivity of 90% and specificity of 96% for rectosigmoid endometriosis, while MRI had 88% sensitivity and 90% specificity.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

⚙ AI-generated deep summary by claude@2026-06, 2026-06-13 · read from full text ⓘ

This correction paper updates the Abstract’s Results text for a previously published systematic review and meta-analysis comparing transvaginal sonography (TVS) versus magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for rectosigmoid endometriosis (RE). It corrects the pooled diagnostic performance values, reporting that MRI for RE had sensitivity 88% and specificity 90% with LR+ 17.26 and LR- 0.15, while TVS had sensitivity 90% and specificity 96% with LR+ 20.66 and LR- 0.12 (with corresponding 95% confidence intervals). The paper’s main caveat is that it does not present new analyses or additional data beyond correcting an error in the previously published Abstract. This paper is centrally about endometriosis — it is a correction to a meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy for rectosigmoid endometriosis.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

In the Results section of the Abstract, there is an error in the second sentence. The correct sentence is: The pooled sensitivity, specificity, LR+, and LR-values of MRI for RE were 88% (95% CI, 85-91%), 90% (95% CI, 88-92%), 17.26 (95% CI, 3.57-83.50), and 0.15 (95% CI, 0.10-0.23); values of TVS were 90% [95% CI, 87-92%], 96% (95% CI, 94-97%), 20.66 (95% CI, 8.71-49.00) and 0.12 (95% CI, 0.08-0.20), respectively.
Full text 1,389 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
In the Results section of the Abstract, there is an error in the second sentence. The correct sentence is: The pooled sensitivity, specificity, LR+, and LR- values of MRI for RE were 88% (95% CI, 85–91%), 90% (95% CI, 88–92%), 17.26 (95% CI, 3.57–83.50), and 0.15 (95% CI, 0.10–0.23); values of TVS were 90% [95% CI, 87–92%], 96% (95% CI, 94–97%), 20.66 (95% CI, 8.71–49.00) and 0.12 (95% CI, 0.08–0.20), respectively. Reference - 1. Moura APC, Ribeiro HSAA, Bernardo WM, Simões R, Torres US, D’Ippolito G, et al. (2019) Accuracy of transvaginal sonography versus magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of rectosigmoid endometriosis: Systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 14(4): e0214842. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214842 pmid:30964888 Citation: Moura APC, Ribeiro HSAA, Bernardo WM, Simões R, Torres US, D’Ippolito G, et al. (2019) Correction: Accuracy of transvaginal sonography versus magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of rectosigmoid endometriosis: Systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 14(8): e0221499. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221499 Published: August 16, 2019 Copyright: © 2019 Moura et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

⚙ Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback ⓘ

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Condition tags

endometriosis

Citation neighborhood

Papers in the corpus that this work cites (lower rings, blue) and that cite this one (upper rings, green). Dot size scales with the paper's in-corpus citation count — bigger dot = more influential within the endo/adeno field. Click a dot to open that paper. [ expand to 2 hops ] — adds papers reached through this work's immediate citers/citees. Heavier; up to 60 extra dots.

References (1)

Cited by (6)

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-07-26T06:08:39.051465+00:00
openalex
last seen: 2026-06-10T17:14:06.276822+00:00
pubmed
last seen: 2026-05-13T22:22:35.348889+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK