Three‐dimensional ultrasound in the diagnosis of Müllerian duct anomalies and concordance with magnetic resonance imaging
Objectives To demonstrate the value of three‐dimensional (3D) ultrasound in the diagnosis of uterine malformations and its concordance with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Methods This study included 286 women diagnosed with uterine malformation by 3D ultrasound, having been referred to our clinic...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology 2010-05, Vol.35 (5), p.593-601 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 601 |
---|---|
container_issue | 5 |
container_start_page | 593 |
container_title | Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology |
container_volume | 35 |
creator | Bermejo, C. Martínez Ten, P. Cantarero, R. Diaz, D. Pérez Pedregosa, J. Barrón, E. Labrador, E. Ruiz López, L. |
description | Objectives
To demonstrate the value of three‐dimensional (3D) ultrasound in the diagnosis of uterine malformations and its concordance with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
Methods
This study included 286 women diagnosed with uterine malformation by 3D ultrasound, having been referred to our clinics on suspicion of uterine malformation following clinical and/or conventional two‐dimensional ultrasound examination. With the exception of three with intact hymen, patients underwent both bimanual examination and speculoscopy before and/or after sonography. MRI was performed in 65 cases. We analyzed the diagnostic concordance between the techniques in the study of uterine malformations.
Results
Using 3D ultrasound we diagnosed: one case with uterine agenesis; 10 with unicornuate uterus, four of which also underwent MRI; six with didelphic uterus, one of which had MRI; 45 with bicornuate uterus, 12 of which had MRI; 125 with septate uterus (18 with two cervices), 42 of which had MRI (six with two cervices); 96 with arcuate uterus, three of which had MRI; and three with diethylstilbestrol (DES) iatrogenic uterine malformations, all of which had MRI. Among the 65 which underwent MRI, the diagnosis was: four cases with unicornuate uterus, 10 with bicornuate uterus (two with two cervices), 45 with septate uterus (five with two cervices), three with arcuate uterus and three with DES‐related uterine malformations. The concordance between 3D ultrasound and MRI was very good (kappa index, 0.880 (95% CI, 0.769–0.993)). Discrepancies in diagnosis between the two techniques occurred in four cases. There was very good concordance in the diagnosis of associated findings (kappa index, 0.878 (95% CI, 0.775–0.980)), this analysis identifying differences in two cases.
Conclusions
There is a high degree of concordance between 3D ultrasound and MRI in the diagnosis of uterine malformations, the relationship between cavity and fundus being visualized equally well with both techniques. 3D ultrasound should be complemented by careful gynecological exploration in order to identify any alterations in the cervix. Copyright © 2010 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1002/uog.7551 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_733949606</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1017963766</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4171-747ee40ba36e4437a424a42e636c915ceb2049098c92e90101e9a3fa4d8b84083</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kUtuFDEQhi0EIkNA4gTIGwSbDuVH2-0likhACsomWbc87uoZI7cd7G5FkbLgCBwoO27CSfCQ4bGBRalKpa_-UtVPyHMGRwyAv1nS5ki3LXtAVkwq04CG9iFZgVHQaGX4AXlSyicAUFKox-SAA7RcqXZFbi-2GfH7l6-DnzAWn6INdAlztiUtcaA-0nmLdPB2E1PxhaaRfvx2FwJmbyMdFjdTG9Nkg8dSq4G6FF3Kg40O6bWft3Sqozh7RzOWKr_r-9rzcfOUPBptKPhsnw_J5cm7i-P3zdn56Yfjt2eNk0yzRkuNKGFthUIphbaSyxqohHKGtQ7XHKQB0znD0QADhsaK0cqhW3cSOnFIXt3rXuX0ecEy95MvDkOwEdNSei2EkfVXqpKv_0tWbW2U0Oov1OVUSsaxv8r1rnxToX7nSl9d6XeuVPTFXnVZTzj8Bn_ZUIGXe8AWZ8OY65d8-cNx1XVcQeWae-7aB7z558L-8vz05-IfIzqlmw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1017963766</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Three‐dimensional ultrasound in the diagnosis of Müllerian duct anomalies and concordance with magnetic resonance imaging</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)</source><creator>Bermejo, C. ; Martínez Ten, P. ; Cantarero, R. ; Diaz, D. ; Pérez Pedregosa, J. ; Barrón, E. ; Labrador, E. ; Ruiz López, L.</creator><creatorcontrib>Bermejo, C. ; Martínez Ten, P. ; Cantarero, R. ; Diaz, D. ; Pérez Pedregosa, J. ; Barrón, E. ; Labrador, E. ; Ruiz López, L.</creatorcontrib><description>Objectives
To demonstrate the value of three‐dimensional (3D) ultrasound in the diagnosis of uterine malformations and its concordance with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
Methods
This study included 286 women diagnosed with uterine malformation by 3D ultrasound, having been referred to our clinics on suspicion of uterine malformation following clinical and/or conventional two‐dimensional ultrasound examination. With the exception of three with intact hymen, patients underwent both bimanual examination and speculoscopy before and/or after sonography. MRI was performed in 65 cases. We analyzed the diagnostic concordance between the techniques in the study of uterine malformations.
Results
Using 3D ultrasound we diagnosed: one case with uterine agenesis; 10 with unicornuate uterus, four of which also underwent MRI; six with didelphic uterus, one of which had MRI; 45 with bicornuate uterus, 12 of which had MRI; 125 with septate uterus (18 with two cervices), 42 of which had MRI (six with two cervices); 96 with arcuate uterus, three of which had MRI; and three with diethylstilbestrol (DES) iatrogenic uterine malformations, all of which had MRI. Among the 65 which underwent MRI, the diagnosis was: four cases with unicornuate uterus, 10 with bicornuate uterus (two with two cervices), 45 with septate uterus (five with two cervices), three with arcuate uterus and three with DES‐related uterine malformations. The concordance between 3D ultrasound and MRI was very good (kappa index, 0.880 (95% CI, 0.769–0.993)). Discrepancies in diagnosis between the two techniques occurred in four cases. There was very good concordance in the diagnosis of associated findings (kappa index, 0.878 (95% CI, 0.775–0.980)), this analysis identifying differences in two cases.
Conclusions
There is a high degree of concordance between 3D ultrasound and MRI in the diagnosis of uterine malformations, the relationship between cavity and fundus being visualized equally well with both techniques. 3D ultrasound should be complemented by careful gynecological exploration in order to identify any alterations in the cervix. Copyright © 2010 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0960-7692</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1469-0705</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1469-0705</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/uog.7551</identifier><identifier>PMID: 20052665</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd</publisher><subject>3D US ; Biological and medical sciences ; Cavities ; Cervix ; congenital uterine malformations ; Diethylstilbestrol ; Exploration ; Female ; Gynecology ; Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics ; Humans ; Imaging, Three-Dimensional - methods ; magnetic resonance ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging ; Medical sciences ; MRI ; Mullerian ; Mullerian Ducts - abnormalities ; Mullerian Ducts - diagnostic imaging ; Mullerian Ducts - pathology ; Müllerian anomalies ; Müllerian duct anomalies ; Obstetrics ; Reproducibility of Results ; three‐dimensional ultrasonography ; Ultrasonography ; Ultrasound ; Uterine Diseases - diagnosis ; Uterine Diseases - pathology ; uterine malformations ; Uterus ; Uterus - abnormalities</subject><ispartof>Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology, 2010-05, Vol.35 (5), p.593-601</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2010 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright 2010 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4171-747ee40ba36e4437a424a42e636c915ceb2049098c92e90101e9a3fa4d8b84083</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4171-747ee40ba36e4437a424a42e636c915ceb2049098c92e90101e9a3fa4d8b84083</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fuog.7551$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fuog.7551$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,1433,27924,27925,45574,45575,46409,46833</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=22688260$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20052665$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bermejo, C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Martínez Ten, P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cantarero, R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Diaz, D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pérez Pedregosa, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barrón, E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Labrador, E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ruiz López, L.</creatorcontrib><title>Three‐dimensional ultrasound in the diagnosis of Müllerian duct anomalies and concordance with magnetic resonance imaging</title><title>Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology</title><addtitle>Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol</addtitle><description>Objectives
To demonstrate the value of three‐dimensional (3D) ultrasound in the diagnosis of uterine malformations and its concordance with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
Methods
This study included 286 women diagnosed with uterine malformation by 3D ultrasound, having been referred to our clinics on suspicion of uterine malformation following clinical and/or conventional two‐dimensional ultrasound examination. With the exception of three with intact hymen, patients underwent both bimanual examination and speculoscopy before and/or after sonography. MRI was performed in 65 cases. We analyzed the diagnostic concordance between the techniques in the study of uterine malformations.
Results
Using 3D ultrasound we diagnosed: one case with uterine agenesis; 10 with unicornuate uterus, four of which also underwent MRI; six with didelphic uterus, one of which had MRI; 45 with bicornuate uterus, 12 of which had MRI; 125 with septate uterus (18 with two cervices), 42 of which had MRI (six with two cervices); 96 with arcuate uterus, three of which had MRI; and three with diethylstilbestrol (DES) iatrogenic uterine malformations, all of which had MRI. Among the 65 which underwent MRI, the diagnosis was: four cases with unicornuate uterus, 10 with bicornuate uterus (two with two cervices), 45 with septate uterus (five with two cervices), three with arcuate uterus and three with DES‐related uterine malformations. The concordance between 3D ultrasound and MRI was very good (kappa index, 0.880 (95% CI, 0.769–0.993)). Discrepancies in diagnosis between the two techniques occurred in four cases. There was very good concordance in the diagnosis of associated findings (kappa index, 0.878 (95% CI, 0.775–0.980)), this analysis identifying differences in two cases.
Conclusions
There is a high degree of concordance between 3D ultrasound and MRI in the diagnosis of uterine malformations, the relationship between cavity and fundus being visualized equally well with both techniques. 3D ultrasound should be complemented by careful gynecological exploration in order to identify any alterations in the cervix. Copyright © 2010 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</description><subject>3D US</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Cavities</subject><subject>Cervix</subject><subject>congenital uterine malformations</subject><subject>Diethylstilbestrol</subject><subject>Exploration</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Gynecology</subject><subject>Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Imaging, Three-Dimensional - methods</subject><subject>magnetic resonance</subject><subject>Magnetic Resonance Imaging</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>MRI</subject><subject>Mullerian</subject><subject>Mullerian Ducts - abnormalities</subject><subject>Mullerian Ducts - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Mullerian Ducts - pathology</subject><subject>Müllerian anomalies</subject><subject>Müllerian duct anomalies</subject><subject>Obstetrics</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>three‐dimensional ultrasonography</subject><subject>Ultrasonography</subject><subject>Ultrasound</subject><subject>Uterine Diseases - diagnosis</subject><subject>Uterine Diseases - pathology</subject><subject>uterine malformations</subject><subject>Uterus</subject><subject>Uterus - abnormalities</subject><issn>0960-7692</issn><issn>1469-0705</issn><issn>1469-0705</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kUtuFDEQhi0EIkNA4gTIGwSbDuVH2-0likhACsomWbc87uoZI7cd7G5FkbLgCBwoO27CSfCQ4bGBRalKpa_-UtVPyHMGRwyAv1nS5ki3LXtAVkwq04CG9iFZgVHQaGX4AXlSyicAUFKox-SAA7RcqXZFbi-2GfH7l6-DnzAWn6INdAlztiUtcaA-0nmLdPB2E1PxhaaRfvx2FwJmbyMdFjdTG9Nkg8dSq4G6FF3Kg40O6bWft3Sqozh7RzOWKr_r-9rzcfOUPBptKPhsnw_J5cm7i-P3zdn56Yfjt2eNk0yzRkuNKGFthUIphbaSyxqohHKGtQ7XHKQB0znD0QADhsaK0cqhW3cSOnFIXt3rXuX0ecEy95MvDkOwEdNSei2EkfVXqpKv_0tWbW2U0Oov1OVUSsaxv8r1rnxToX7nSl9d6XeuVPTFXnVZTzj8Bn_ZUIGXe8AWZ8OY65d8-cNx1XVcQeWae-7aB7z558L-8vz05-IfIzqlmw</recordid><startdate>201005</startdate><enddate>201005</enddate><creator>Bermejo, C.</creator><creator>Martínez Ten, P.</creator><creator>Cantarero, R.</creator><creator>Diaz, D.</creator><creator>Pérez Pedregosa, J.</creator><creator>Barrón, E.</creator><creator>Labrador, E.</creator><creator>Ruiz López, L.</creator><general>John Wiley & Sons, Ltd</general><general>Wiley</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201005</creationdate><title>Three‐dimensional ultrasound in the diagnosis of Müllerian duct anomalies and concordance with magnetic resonance imaging</title><author>Bermejo, C. ; Martínez Ten, P. ; Cantarero, R. ; Diaz, D. ; Pérez Pedregosa, J. ; Barrón, E. ; Labrador, E. ; Ruiz López, L.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4171-747ee40ba36e4437a424a42e636c915ceb2049098c92e90101e9a3fa4d8b84083</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>3D US</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Cavities</topic><topic>Cervix</topic><topic>congenital uterine malformations</topic><topic>Diethylstilbestrol</topic><topic>Exploration</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Gynecology</topic><topic>Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Imaging, Three-Dimensional - methods</topic><topic>magnetic resonance</topic><topic>Magnetic Resonance Imaging</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>MRI</topic><topic>Mullerian</topic><topic>Mullerian Ducts - abnormalities</topic><topic>Mullerian Ducts - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Mullerian Ducts - pathology</topic><topic>Müllerian anomalies</topic><topic>Müllerian duct anomalies</topic><topic>Obstetrics</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>three‐dimensional ultrasonography</topic><topic>Ultrasonography</topic><topic>Ultrasound</topic><topic>Uterine Diseases - diagnosis</topic><topic>Uterine Diseases - pathology</topic><topic>uterine malformations</topic><topic>Uterus</topic><topic>Uterus - abnormalities</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bermejo, C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Martínez Ten, P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cantarero, R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Diaz, D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pérez Pedregosa, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barrón, E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Labrador, E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ruiz López, L.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bermejo, C.</au><au>Martínez Ten, P.</au><au>Cantarero, R.</au><au>Diaz, D.</au><au>Pérez Pedregosa, J.</au><au>Barrón, E.</au><au>Labrador, E.</au><au>Ruiz López, L.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Three‐dimensional ultrasound in the diagnosis of Müllerian duct anomalies and concordance with magnetic resonance imaging</atitle><jtitle>Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology</jtitle><addtitle>Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol</addtitle><date>2010-05</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>35</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>593</spage><epage>601</epage><pages>593-601</pages><issn>0960-7692</issn><issn>1469-0705</issn><eissn>1469-0705</eissn><abstract>Objectives
To demonstrate the value of three‐dimensional (3D) ultrasound in the diagnosis of uterine malformations and its concordance with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
Methods
This study included 286 women diagnosed with uterine malformation by 3D ultrasound, having been referred to our clinics on suspicion of uterine malformation following clinical and/or conventional two‐dimensional ultrasound examination. With the exception of three with intact hymen, patients underwent both bimanual examination and speculoscopy before and/or after sonography. MRI was performed in 65 cases. We analyzed the diagnostic concordance between the techniques in the study of uterine malformations.
Results
Using 3D ultrasound we diagnosed: one case with uterine agenesis; 10 with unicornuate uterus, four of which also underwent MRI; six with didelphic uterus, one of which had MRI; 45 with bicornuate uterus, 12 of which had MRI; 125 with septate uterus (18 with two cervices), 42 of which had MRI (six with two cervices); 96 with arcuate uterus, three of which had MRI; and three with diethylstilbestrol (DES) iatrogenic uterine malformations, all of which had MRI. Among the 65 which underwent MRI, the diagnosis was: four cases with unicornuate uterus, 10 with bicornuate uterus (two with two cervices), 45 with septate uterus (five with two cervices), three with arcuate uterus and three with DES‐related uterine malformations. The concordance between 3D ultrasound and MRI was very good (kappa index, 0.880 (95% CI, 0.769–0.993)). Discrepancies in diagnosis between the two techniques occurred in four cases. There was very good concordance in the diagnosis of associated findings (kappa index, 0.878 (95% CI, 0.775–0.980)), this analysis identifying differences in two cases.
Conclusions
There is a high degree of concordance between 3D ultrasound and MRI in the diagnosis of uterine malformations, the relationship between cavity and fundus being visualized equally well with both techniques. 3D ultrasound should be complemented by careful gynecological exploration in order to identify any alterations in the cervix. Copyright © 2010 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</abstract><cop>Chichester, UK</cop><pub>John Wiley & Sons, Ltd</pub><pmid>20052665</pmid><doi>10.1002/uog.7551</doi><tpages>9</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0960-7692 |
ispartof | Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology, 2010-05, Vol.35 (5), p.593-601 |
issn | 0960-7692 1469-0705 1469-0705 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_733949606 |
source | MEDLINE; Access via Wiley Online Library; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection) |
subjects | 3D US Biological and medical sciences Cavities Cervix congenital uterine malformations Diethylstilbestrol Exploration Female Gynecology Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics Humans Imaging, Three-Dimensional - methods magnetic resonance Magnetic Resonance Imaging Medical sciences MRI Mullerian Mullerian Ducts - abnormalities Mullerian Ducts - diagnostic imaging Mullerian Ducts - pathology Müllerian anomalies Müllerian duct anomalies Obstetrics Reproducibility of Results three‐dimensional ultrasonography Ultrasonography Ultrasound Uterine Diseases - diagnosis Uterine Diseases - pathology uterine malformations Uterus Uterus - abnormalities |
title | Three‐dimensional ultrasound in the diagnosis of Müllerian duct anomalies and concordance with magnetic resonance imaging |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T15%3A00%3A49IST&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=Three%E2%80%90dimensional%20ultrasound%20in%20the%20diagnosis%20of%20M%C3%BCllerian%20duct%20anomalies%20and%20concordance%20with%20magnetic%20resonance%20imaging&rft.jtitle=Ultrasound%20in%20obstetrics%20&%20gynecology&rft.au=Bermejo,%20C.&rft.date=2010-05&rft.volume=35&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=593&rft.epage=601&rft.pages=593-601&rft.issn=0960-7692&rft.eissn=1469-0705&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/uog.7551&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1017963766%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=1017963766&rft_id=info:pmid/20052665&rfr_iscdi=true |