Ultrasound diagnostic of intrauterine adhesions: Systematic review and meta‐analysis

Abstract

AbstractPurposeTo summarize and compare the accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound (TVS), 3D‐TVS, and sonohysterography (SHG) for the diagnosis of intrauterine adhesions (IUA).MethodsThe computer searches databases such as web of science, Medline, EMBASE, and PubMed collecting diagnostic studies of IUA via ultrasound. The retrieval time was included from inception to January 1, 2023. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted information, and used RevMan 5.3 to complete an assessment of the risk of bias in the included literature. Meta‐analysis of included studies using Stata 16.0 and Meta Disc 1.4 software.ResultsThirteen studies were included. The analysis results of 2D‐TVS are The sensitivity (SEN): 0.54 (95% CI [0.28078]), specificity (SPE): 0.96 (95% CI [0.78, 0.99]), and the area (AUC) under the operating characteristic curve (SROC): 0.83 (95% CI [0.80, 0.86]); the SEN, SPE, and AUC of 3D‐TVS are: 0.96 (95% CI [0.90, 0.98]), 0.84 (95% CI [0.68, 0.93]), 0.97 (95% CI [0.95, 0.98]); and the SEN, SPE, and AUC of SHG are: 0.74 (95% CI [0.53, 0.88]), 0.97 (95% CI [0.94, 0.99]), 0.95 (95% CI [0.93, 0.97]).ConclusionThe current results show that the diagnostic value of 3D‐TVS for IUA is better than SHG and significantly higher than that of 2D‐TVS. However, the analysis of subgroups is still limited by the number of included studies. In order to better explore the application of ultrasound in intrauterine adhesion, more high‐quality studies are needed in the future.