Accuracy of combined physical examination, transvaginal ultrasonography, and magnetic resonance imaging to diagnose deep endometriosis

Alexis Roditis, Marie Florin, Florin M, Pascal Rousset, Rousset P, Touboul C, Cyril Touboul, Bendifallah S, Sofiane Bendifallah, Marc Bazot, Bazot M, Isabelle Thomassin-Naggara, Thomassin-Naggara I, Isabelle Thomassin‐Naggara
Fertility and sterility · 2022 · vol. 119(4) , pp. 634–643 · doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2022.12.025 · PMID:36563836 · W4312084363
article OA: closed CC0 ⤵ 21 in-corpus citations
🔓 Open OA copy View on OpenAlex View on PubMed View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by gemini-2.5-flash-lite, 2026-06-07 ⓘ

This study evaluated the accuracy of physical examination, transvaginal ultrasonography, and MRI for diagnosing deep endometriosis.

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

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To assess the ability of physical examination (PE), transvaginal ultrasonography (TVUS), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) alone and combined to diagnose deep infiltrating endometriosis (DIE). DESIGN: We retrospectively queried our pelvic MRI database to identify women who underwent PE, TVUS, and pelvic MRI for DIE up to 12 months before surgery between January 1, 2016 and August 31, 2020. The presence of uterosacral ligaments (USL), vaginal, rectosigmoid (RS), parametrial, or sacrorectogenital septum (lateral) DIE shown by PE, TVUS, and MRI were correlated with surgical and histological findings. SETTING: Academic hospital. PATIENT(S): We included 178 patients. INTERVENTION(S): Clinical and imaging evaluation of women who were diagnosed at surgery with deep pelvic endometriosis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy of each technique separately and combined were assessed for each location. When the 3 techniques were combined, 2 models were tested as follows: all 3 techniques positive and concordant; and ≥2 techniques positive and concordant. RESULT(S): The prevalence of USL, vaginal, RS, and lateral DIE were 94.4%, 20.2%, 34.3%, and 32.6%, respectively. In addition, MRI was more sensitive than PE, TVUS or any combination to detect DIE. Moreover, MRI and model B were the most accurate for detecting USL and RS locations with an accuracy of 90.4% and 82.6%, a sensitivity of 91.1% and 50%, and a specificity of 77.8% and 90.9%, respectively. Model B was the most accurate for the vaginal location with an accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of 82.6%, 50%, and 90.9%, respectively. Finally, MRI was more accurate than any combination for identifying a lateral location with an accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of 75.1%, 36%, and 93.8%, respectively. CONCLUSION(S): A combination of PE, TVUS, and MRI was more accurate than each technique separately to diagnose DIE because of the equally high sensitivity of each, as well as the high specificity of PE and TVUS.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Condition tags

endometriosis

MeSH descriptors

Endometriosis Endometriosis Endometriosis Endometriosis Endometriosis Endometriosis Endometriosis Endometriosis Endometriosis Endometriosis Endometriosis Endometriosis Endometriosis Endometriosis Endometriosis Endometriosis Endometriosis Endometriosis Endometriosis 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 (40)

Cited by (21)

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-08-18T06:10:16.649438+00:00
openalex
last seen: 2026-06-10T17:14:06.276822+00:00
pubmed
last seen: 2026-08-18T06:09:54.295454+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-08-14T06:25:32.811723+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK