Diagnostic performance of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) for differentiating endometrial carcinoma from benign lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis
To determine the diagnostic performance of mean ADC values in the characterization of endometrial carcinoma (EC) from benign lesions by systematic review of the literature and performing meta-analysis. A systematic search of major electronic bibliographic databases was performed to find studies that...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Abdominal imaging 2021-03, Vol.46 (3), p.1115-1128 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1128 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 1115 |
container_title | Abdominal imaging |
container_volume | 46 |
creator | Moharamzad, Yashar Davarpanah, Amir H. Yaghobi Joybari, Ali Shahbazi, Fatemeh Esmaeilian Toosi, Leila Kooshkiforooshani, Melika Ansari, Ali Sanei Taheri, Morteza |
description | To determine the diagnostic performance of mean ADC values in the characterization of endometrial carcinoma (EC) from benign lesions by systematic review of the literature and performing meta-analysis. A systematic search of major electronic bibliographic databases was performed to find studies that used ADC values for differentiating EC from benign lesions. Two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts of the search results and then by reading the full texts selected the pertinent studies for final analyses. A bivariate random-effects model with pooled sensitivity and specificity values with 95% CI (confidence interval) was used. Summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve and area under curve (AUC) were created. Between-study heterogeneity was measured using
I
squared (
I
2
) index. Eleven studies including 269 ECs and 208 benign lesions were analyzed. Pooled average (95% CI) ADC in EC and benign lesions groups were, respectively, 0.82 (0.77–0.87) × 10
–3
mm
2
/s and 1.41 (1.29–1.52) × 10
–3
mm
2
/s. The combined (95% CI) sensitivity and specificity of mean ADC values for differentiating EC from benign lesions were 93% (87–96%;
I
2
= 41.19%) and 94% (88–97%;
I
2
= 46.91%), respectively. The AUC (95% CI) of the SROC curve was 98% (96–99%). ADC values had good diagnostic accuracy for differentiating EC from benign lesions. In order to recommend ADC measurement for detecting endometrial lesions in routine clinical practice, more primary studies, especially trials and comparative studies including hysteroscopically-guided biopsy method, with larger sample sizes are still required. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00261-020-02734-w |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2443518733</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2498797956</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-7a732f92faec3e33536d604f33cb76b929b35c9268a441e40482dc84b50c205c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kc1q3TAQhU1paUKSF-iiCLpJF25k_drdhZsmLQS6SaA7M5ZHFwVbciU7l_s8fdHKuWkKXXQxaJj5zhnBKYp3Ff1UUaovEqVMVSVlNJfmoty9Ko4ZV6qkVNavX3rx46g4S-mBUlopWVVMvi2OOGu4ZLI-Ln5dOdj6kGZnyITRhjiCN0iCJTBNENHPpHfWLskFT0xAa51x6_T88mrzkWTB0x5X0sHs_Jag78OIc3QwEAPROB9GIDaGkXTo3daTAVe79JkASfs04wjr_YiPDncEfE-yHErwMOyTS6fFGwtDwrPn96S4v_5yt_la3n6_-ba5vC0N13IuNWjObMMsoOHIueSqV1RYzk2nVdewpuPSNEzVIESFgoqa9aYWnaSGUWn4SXF-8J1i-LlgmtvRJYPDAB7DklomBJdVrTnP6Id_0IewxPzflWpq3ehGqkyxA2ViSCmibafoRoj7tqLtmmJ7SLHNKbZPKba7LHr_bL10I_Yvkj-ZZYAfgJRXfovx7-3_2P4GFISqfw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2498797956</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Diagnostic performance of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) for differentiating endometrial carcinoma from benign lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis</title><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><creator>Moharamzad, Yashar ; Davarpanah, Amir H. ; Yaghobi Joybari, Ali ; Shahbazi, Fatemeh ; Esmaeilian Toosi, Leila ; Kooshkiforooshani, Melika ; Ansari, Ali ; Sanei Taheri, Morteza</creator><creatorcontrib>Moharamzad, Yashar ; Davarpanah, Amir H. ; Yaghobi Joybari, Ali ; Shahbazi, Fatemeh ; Esmaeilian Toosi, Leila ; Kooshkiforooshani, Melika ; Ansari, Ali ; Sanei Taheri, Morteza</creatorcontrib><description>To determine the diagnostic performance of mean ADC values in the characterization of endometrial carcinoma (EC) from benign lesions by systematic review of the literature and performing meta-analysis. A systematic search of major electronic bibliographic databases was performed to find studies that used ADC values for differentiating EC from benign lesions. Two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts of the search results and then by reading the full texts selected the pertinent studies for final analyses. A bivariate random-effects model with pooled sensitivity and specificity values with 95% CI (confidence interval) was used. Summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve and area under curve (AUC) were created. Between-study heterogeneity was measured using
I
squared (
I
2
) index. Eleven studies including 269 ECs and 208 benign lesions were analyzed. Pooled average (95% CI) ADC in EC and benign lesions groups were, respectively, 0.82 (0.77–0.87) × 10
–3
mm
2
/s and 1.41 (1.29–1.52) × 10
–3
mm
2
/s. The combined (95% CI) sensitivity and specificity of mean ADC values for differentiating EC from benign lesions were 93% (87–96%;
I
2
= 41.19%) and 94% (88–97%;
I
2
= 46.91%), respectively. The AUC (95% CI) of the SROC curve was 98% (96–99%). ADC values had good diagnostic accuracy for differentiating EC from benign lesions. In order to recommend ADC measurement for detecting endometrial lesions in routine clinical practice, more primary studies, especially trials and comparative studies including hysteroscopically-guided biopsy method, with larger sample sizes are still required.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2366-004X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2366-0058</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00261-020-02734-w</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32935258</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>Benign ; Biopsy ; Bivariate analysis ; Carcinoma ; Clinical trials ; Comparative studies ; Confidence intervals ; Diagnostic systems ; Diffusion coefficient ; Endometrial cancer ; Endometrium ; Gastroenterology ; Hepatology ; Heterogeneity ; Imaging ; Lesions ; Literature reviews ; Medical diagnosis ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Meta-analysis ; Radiology ; Review ; Systematic review ; Uterine cancer</subject><ispartof>Abdominal imaging, 2021-03, Vol.46 (3), p.1115-1128</ispartof><rights>Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020. Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-7a732f92faec3e33536d604f33cb76b929b35c9268a441e40482dc84b50c205c3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-7a732f92faec3e33536d604f33cb76b929b35c9268a441e40482dc84b50c205c3</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-0950-6772 ; 0000-0002-8881-9058</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00261-020-02734-w$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00261-020-02734-w$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904,41467,42536,51297</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32935258$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Moharamzad, Yashar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Davarpanah, Amir H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yaghobi Joybari, Ali</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shahbazi, Fatemeh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Esmaeilian Toosi, Leila</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kooshkiforooshani, Melika</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ansari, Ali</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sanei Taheri, Morteza</creatorcontrib><title>Diagnostic performance of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) for differentiating endometrial carcinoma from benign lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis</title><title>Abdominal imaging</title><addtitle>Abdom Radiol</addtitle><addtitle>Abdom Radiol (NY)</addtitle><description>To determine the diagnostic performance of mean ADC values in the characterization of endometrial carcinoma (EC) from benign lesions by systematic review of the literature and performing meta-analysis. A systematic search of major electronic bibliographic databases was performed to find studies that used ADC values for differentiating EC from benign lesions. Two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts of the search results and then by reading the full texts selected the pertinent studies for final analyses. A bivariate random-effects model with pooled sensitivity and specificity values with 95% CI (confidence interval) was used. Summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve and area under curve (AUC) were created. Between-study heterogeneity was measured using
I
squared (
I
2
) index. Eleven studies including 269 ECs and 208 benign lesions were analyzed. Pooled average (95% CI) ADC in EC and benign lesions groups were, respectively, 0.82 (0.77–0.87) × 10
–3
mm
2
/s and 1.41 (1.29–1.52) × 10
–3
mm
2
/s. The combined (95% CI) sensitivity and specificity of mean ADC values for differentiating EC from benign lesions were 93% (87–96%;
I
2
= 41.19%) and 94% (88–97%;
I
2
= 46.91%), respectively. The AUC (95% CI) of the SROC curve was 98% (96–99%). ADC values had good diagnostic accuracy for differentiating EC from benign lesions. In order to recommend ADC measurement for detecting endometrial lesions in routine clinical practice, more primary studies, especially trials and comparative studies including hysteroscopically-guided biopsy method, with larger sample sizes are still required.</description><subject>Benign</subject><subject>Biopsy</subject><subject>Bivariate analysis</subject><subject>Carcinoma</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Comparative studies</subject><subject>Confidence intervals</subject><subject>Diagnostic systems</subject><subject>Diffusion coefficient</subject><subject>Endometrial cancer</subject><subject>Endometrium</subject><subject>Gastroenterology</subject><subject>Hepatology</subject><subject>Heterogeneity</subject><subject>Imaging</subject><subject>Lesions</subject><subject>Literature reviews</subject><subject>Medical diagnosis</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>Radiology</subject><subject>Review</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><subject>Uterine cancer</subject><issn>2366-004X</issn><issn>2366-0058</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kc1q3TAQhU1paUKSF-iiCLpJF25k_drdhZsmLQS6SaA7M5ZHFwVbciU7l_s8fdHKuWkKXXQxaJj5zhnBKYp3Ff1UUaovEqVMVSVlNJfmoty9Ko4ZV6qkVNavX3rx46g4S-mBUlopWVVMvi2OOGu4ZLI-Ln5dOdj6kGZnyITRhjiCN0iCJTBNENHPpHfWLskFT0xAa51x6_T88mrzkWTB0x5X0sHs_Jag78OIc3QwEAPROB9GIDaGkXTo3daTAVe79JkASfs04wjr_YiPDncEfE-yHErwMOyTS6fFGwtDwrPn96S4v_5yt_la3n6_-ba5vC0N13IuNWjObMMsoOHIueSqV1RYzk2nVdewpuPSNEzVIESFgoqa9aYWnaSGUWn4SXF-8J1i-LlgmtvRJYPDAB7DklomBJdVrTnP6Id_0IewxPzflWpq3ehGqkyxA2ViSCmibafoRoj7tqLtmmJ7SLHNKbZPKba7LHr_bL10I_Yvkj-ZZYAfgJRXfovx7-3_2P4GFISqfw</recordid><startdate>20210301</startdate><enddate>20210301</enddate><creator>Moharamzad, Yashar</creator><creator>Davarpanah, Amir H.</creator><creator>Yaghobi Joybari, Ali</creator><creator>Shahbazi, Fatemeh</creator><creator>Esmaeilian Toosi, Leila</creator><creator>Kooshkiforooshani, Melika</creator><creator>Ansari, Ali</creator><creator>Sanei Taheri, Morteza</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>K7-</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7Z</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0950-6772</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8881-9058</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20210301</creationdate><title>Diagnostic performance of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) for differentiating endometrial carcinoma from benign lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis</title><author>Moharamzad, Yashar ; Davarpanah, Amir H. ; Yaghobi Joybari, Ali ; Shahbazi, Fatemeh ; Esmaeilian Toosi, Leila ; Kooshkiforooshani, Melika ; Ansari, Ali ; Sanei Taheri, Morteza</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-7a732f92faec3e33536d604f33cb76b929b35c9268a441e40482dc84b50c205c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Benign</topic><topic>Biopsy</topic><topic>Bivariate analysis</topic><topic>Carcinoma</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Comparative studies</topic><topic>Confidence intervals</topic><topic>Diagnostic systems</topic><topic>Diffusion coefficient</topic><topic>Endometrial cancer</topic><topic>Endometrium</topic><topic>Gastroenterology</topic><topic>Hepatology</topic><topic>Heterogeneity</topic><topic>Imaging</topic><topic>Lesions</topic><topic>Literature reviews</topic><topic>Medical diagnosis</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>Radiology</topic><topic>Review</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><topic>Uterine cancer</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Moharamzad, Yashar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Davarpanah, Amir H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yaghobi Joybari, Ali</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shahbazi, Fatemeh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Esmaeilian Toosi, Leila</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kooshkiforooshani, Melika</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ansari, Ali</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sanei Taheri, Morteza</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>Computer Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Biochemistry Abstracts 1</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Abdominal imaging</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Moharamzad, Yashar</au><au>Davarpanah, Amir H.</au><au>Yaghobi Joybari, Ali</au><au>Shahbazi, Fatemeh</au><au>Esmaeilian Toosi, Leila</au><au>Kooshkiforooshani, Melika</au><au>Ansari, Ali</au><au>Sanei Taheri, Morteza</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Diagnostic performance of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) for differentiating endometrial carcinoma from benign lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis</atitle><jtitle>Abdominal imaging</jtitle><stitle>Abdom Radiol</stitle><addtitle>Abdom Radiol (NY)</addtitle><date>2021-03-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>46</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>1115</spage><epage>1128</epage><pages>1115-1128</pages><issn>2366-004X</issn><eissn>2366-0058</eissn><abstract>To determine the diagnostic performance of mean ADC values in the characterization of endometrial carcinoma (EC) from benign lesions by systematic review of the literature and performing meta-analysis. A systematic search of major electronic bibliographic databases was performed to find studies that used ADC values for differentiating EC from benign lesions. Two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts of the search results and then by reading the full texts selected the pertinent studies for final analyses. A bivariate random-effects model with pooled sensitivity and specificity values with 95% CI (confidence interval) was used. Summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve and area under curve (AUC) were created. Between-study heterogeneity was measured using
I
squared (
I
2
) index. Eleven studies including 269 ECs and 208 benign lesions were analyzed. Pooled average (95% CI) ADC in EC and benign lesions groups were, respectively, 0.82 (0.77–0.87) × 10
–3
mm
2
/s and 1.41 (1.29–1.52) × 10
–3
mm
2
/s. The combined (95% CI) sensitivity and specificity of mean ADC values for differentiating EC from benign lesions were 93% (87–96%;
I
2
= 41.19%) and 94% (88–97%;
I
2
= 46.91%), respectively. The AUC (95% CI) of the SROC curve was 98% (96–99%). ADC values had good diagnostic accuracy for differentiating EC from benign lesions. In order to recommend ADC measurement for detecting endometrial lesions in routine clinical practice, more primary studies, especially trials and comparative studies including hysteroscopically-guided biopsy method, with larger sample sizes are still required.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><pmid>32935258</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00261-020-02734-w</doi><tpages>14</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0950-6772</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8881-9058</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2366-004X |
ispartof | Abdominal imaging, 2021-03, Vol.46 (3), p.1115-1128 |
issn | 2366-004X 2366-0058 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2443518733 |
source | Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals |
subjects | Benign Biopsy Bivariate analysis Carcinoma Clinical trials Comparative studies Confidence intervals Diagnostic systems Diffusion coefficient Endometrial cancer Endometrium Gastroenterology Hepatology Heterogeneity Imaging Lesions Literature reviews Medical diagnosis Medicine Medicine & Public Health Meta-analysis Radiology Review Systematic review Uterine cancer |
title | Diagnostic performance of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) for differentiating endometrial carcinoma from benign lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-27T00%3A21%3A46IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Diagnostic%20performance%20of%20apparent%20diffusion%20coefficient%20(ADC)%20for%20differentiating%20endometrial%20carcinoma%20from%20benign%20lesions:%20a%20systematic%20review%20and%20meta-analysis&rft.jtitle=Abdominal%20imaging&rft.au=Moharamzad,%20Yashar&rft.date=2021-03-01&rft.volume=46&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=1115&rft.epage=1128&rft.pages=1115-1128&rft.issn=2366-004X&rft.eissn=2366-0058&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00261-020-02734-w&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2498797956%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2498797956&rft_id=info:pmid/32935258&rfr_iscdi=true |