Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 140548

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
Knowledge is treasure of a wise man. The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help ones reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journalsNo manuscriptsNo authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2021 | Month : July | Volume : 15 | Issue : 7 | Page : QC01 - QC08 Full Version

Transvaginal Ultrasonography and Hysteroscopy in Evaluation of Abnormal Uterine Bleeding- A Cross-sectional Study


Published: July 1, 2021 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2021/46163.15095
G Sindhujha Sekar, A Esther Ruby, P Lalitha

1. Assistant Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Sri Venkateswara Medical College and Hospital, Puducherry, India. 2. Chief Medical Officer (NFSG), Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Rajiv Gandhi Government Women and Children Hospital, Puducherry, India. 3. Chief Medical Officer (NFSG), Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Rajiv Gandhi Government Women and Children Hospital, Puducherry, India.

Correspondence Address :
G. Sindhujha Sekar,
29, Main Avenue, West Brindavan, Puducherry, India.
E-mail: sindhujha.g@gmail.com

Abstract

Introduction: In perimenopausal age group particularly, 70% of all gynaecological consultations are for Abnormal Uterine Bleeding (AUB). About 30% of women seek medical assistance for AUB during their reproductive age group and about one third of hysterectomies are carried out for AUB alone.

Aim: To determine the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of Transvaginal Ultrasonography (TVS) versus hysteroscopy in detecting uterine abnormalities

Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study in patients with AUB, admitted to the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at RGGWCH, Puducherry between February 2016 and February 2017 who met the inclusion criteria were included. Sample size was 85 cases. After taking detailed history and physical examination the patient was investigated to rule out organic causes of AUB and then TVS and hysteroscopy were done. Any intrauterine pathology was looked for and endometrial sampling was taken from the abnormal sites for Histopathological Examination (HPE). Both TVS and hysteroscopy results were compared with histopathology which is the gold standard.

Results: The sensitivity of TVS in diagnosis of uterine fibroid in comparison to hysteroscopy was 94.74% and the specificity was 71.21%. The sensitivity of hysteroscopy in diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia in comparison to HPE was 75% and the specificity was 87.01%. The sensitivity of TVS in diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia in comparison to HPE was 37.5% and the specificity was 90.91%. The sensitivity of hysteroscopy in diagnosis of polyp in comparison to HPE was 100% and the specificity was 97.3%. The sensitivity and specificity of TVS in diagnosis of polyp in comparison to HPE were 9.09% and 93.24%, respectively.

Conclusion: TVS had a high sensitivity to detect fibroids but its value in detecting hyperplasia and polyps was in question in this study. But hysteroscopy had a maximum sensitivity to detect polyps and high sensitivity to detect endometrial hyperplasia compared to histopathology which is a gold standard investigation.

Keywords

Fibroid, Histopathology, Hyperplasia, Polyp

The Abnormal Uterine Bleeding (AUB) is one of the leading causes for seeking gynaecological advice. AUB may be defined as any variation from the normal menstrual cycle and includes change in regularity or frequency of menses, in the duration of flow, or in the amount of blood loss. Accordingly, AUB is divided into Heavy Menstrual Bleeding (HMB), frequent/infrequent, inter-menstrual, postcoital, pre/ postmenstrual bleeding, prolonged/ shortened periods, acute and chronic AUB (1). The PALM-COEIN (Polyp; Adenomyosis; Leiomyoma; Malignancy and Hyperplasia; Coagulopathy; Ovulatory Dysfunction; Endometrial; Latrogenic and Not yet classified) classification system for AUB has been approved by International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) (2). In recent times, several methods including TVS, saline infusion sonography and hysteroscopy, have been developed to assess the uterine cavity, with their own advantages and disadvantages. TVS is a rapid noninvasive and cost-effective method which assesses the structural uterine pathologies. TVS detects fibroids, adenomyosis, endometrial thickness and morphology as well as regularity of endo-myometrial border (3). Hysteroscopy, on the other hand, allows direct visualisation of the uterine cavity and guides sampling of any suspected lesion and has an established diagnostic value for many uterine conditions. Hysteroscopy is highly sensitive and specific for endometrial polyps and submucous myomas. However, hysteroscopy is not as cost-effective and convenient as ultrasonography, as the latter is associated with relatively less patient discomfort and does not necessitate anaesthesia (4). Hysteroscopy is also operator-dependent and requires specialised equipment and trained staff. In the present context of increasing cost awareness and an ever-increasing litigious environment, a balance has to be achieved between the practice of “blanket medicine” aiming at performance of all investigations and a condition-based approach (5). Hysteroscopy was a first line investigation in AUB in a study conducted by Swathi GR et al., in 2020 (6). Hysteroscopy is superior to TVS in detecting endometrial polyp and hyperplasia. The diagnostic efficacy of hysteroscopy for submucous fibroid is 100%. TVS is more efficacious than hysteroscopy for detecting adenomyosis. TVS is superior to hysteroscopy in investigating postmenopausal bleeding. This was a study conducted by Baghel P et al., in 2018 (7). This study was undertaken, to compare the diagnostic values of TVS and those of hysteroscopy and to determine the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of TVS versus hysteroscopy in detecting uterine abnormalities.

Study Objectives

• To study and compare the diagnostic value of TVS and hysteroscopy in evaluation of AUB.
• To determine whether the number of diagnostic hysteroscopies (invasive) can be reduced by TVS (noninvasive) examinations.
• To associate TVS and hysteroscopic findings with histopathological findings for evaluating intrauterine pathology in cases of AUB.

Material and Methods

A cross-sectional study was carried out in Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology in Rajiv Gandhi Government Women and Children Hospital, Puducherry between February 2016 to February 2017 after obtaining approval from IEC (GHIEC/2016). A total of 85 cases with AUB were included.

Sample size calculation: The sample size was estimated by using the OpenEpi, Version 3. To calculate the sample size, AUB accounts for 33% of female patients referred to gynaecologists were taken into consideration as per the study conducted by Goyal BK et al., (8).

Inclusion criteria: Women aged 20 to 55 years with AUB; parous and nulliparous women were included.

Exclusion criteria: Postmenopausal women; women with uterus size more than 16 weeks; known cases of coagulation disorders; women with pregnancy related bleeding; virgin women; known cases of carcinoma cervix or uterine malignancy and women with known pelvic inflammatory disease were excluded.

Study Procedure

Patients satisfying the inclusion criteria were enrolled after getting informed consent. HMB can be defined as excessive menstrual blood loss interfering with a woman’s physical, social, emotional and material quality of life (9). After taking detailed history and physical examination patient was investigated to rule out organic causes of AUB with Complete Blood Count (CBC), Renal Function Tests (RFT), Liver Function Tests (LFT), Blood grouping and typing, Bleeding Time (BT), Clotting Time (CT), Prothrombin Time (PT), Thyroid function tests and Urine Pregnancy Test (UPT) to rule out pregnancy. After getting informed written consent for the procedure, TVS and Hysteroscopy was performed. TVS was done on admission. Bladder was emptied. Privacy is provided to the patient and if sonologist is male then a female assistant was present. The patient was put in supine with thighs abducted, knees flexed and buttocks elevated on a pillow. A transvaginal probe is covered with a condom. A small amount of jelly is applied to the tip of the probe, condom interface and outside sheath. The probe is gently inserted into the vagina and the bladder, ovaries, uterus, cervix and fallopian tubes are evaluated. Endometrial thickness more than 15 mm was taken as endometrial hyperplasia in our study (10). For hysteroscopy, the patient was kept nil oral for 8 hours prior to hysteroscopy. Hysteroscopy was performed under general anaesthesia/spinal anaesthesia/saddle block and hysteroscopy directed biopsy was taken. Our ultrasound machine was Mindray with 6.5 MHZ transvaginal probe. Ultrasound variables studied include endometrial thickness, endometrial echogenicity, endometrial-myometrial interface and myometrium. Hysteroscope was performed using a Karl storzhysteroscope with 30 degree fibroptic lens with 5 mm sheath and normal saline as distension medium. Endometrial cavity was visualised systematically. Any intrauterine pathology was looked for and endometrial sampling was taken from the abnormal sites for HPE (11). Fluid input and output was monitored. Patient’s general condition and vitals were checked. Any bleeding per vaginum was watched for.

Statistical Analysis

Means and proportions were calculated for continuous and categorical variables respectively. Sensitivity, specificity and predictive values were calculated subsequently. Kappa coefficient was calculated to measure agreement between the tests. Miscrosoft Excel 2013 was used for data entry and Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 21.0 was used for statistical analysis.

Results

Majority of the study participants were in the age group of 41-50 years (52.9%). Maximum of the study participants were multipara with parity more than or equal to three (47.1%), while 41.2% of the study participants had a parity of two. Majority of the study participants were in normal weight 44 (51.8%) classification according to BMI (10), where 31 (36.5%) were found to be overweight and 10 (11.7%) of them were obese. HMB was found to be the most common presenting symptom 83 (97.6%) among the study participants (Table/Fig 1).

Nearly 11.8% of the study participants were found to have polyp on P/S examination. Majority of the study participants 44 (51.8%) were found to have a bulky uterus on examination, whereas 37.6% of them had an enlarged uterus with its size ranging from 6-16 weeks. Majority of the study participants had their symptoms for a duration ranging from one month to six months, while 27 (31.7%) of the participants had their symptoms for a period of six months to one year (Table/Fig 1).

Nearly 34.1% (18.8%+15.3%) of the study participants had an endometrial thickness levels more than normal (normal endometrial thickness is 12 mm), while 8 (9.4%) of them had a thickness of endometrium less than 5 mm (Table/Fig 1).

TVS showed presence of endometrial polyp among five of the study participants (5.9%) and cervical polyp in one participant (1.2%). TVS showed presence of adenomyosis in six of the study participants (7.1%). TVS showed presence of anterior wall fibroid in 15.3%. TVS showed presence of endometrial hyperplasia in 15.3% of the study participants. Cystic ovaries or polycystic ovaries were seen in nine of all the study participants (10.6%) of which two were large ovarian cysts of size 10×8 cm and 6×5 cm. On performing a hysteroscopy, six participants were found to have endocervical polyp (7.0%) and one patient was found to have cervical fibroid (Table/Fig 2).

The sensitivity of TVS in diagnosis of uterine fibroid in comparison to hysteroscopy was 94.74% and the specificity was 71.21%. Moderate agreement was observed between the two tests (Kappa coefficient=0.493) (Table/Fig 3).

The sensitivity of hysteroscopy in diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia in comparison to HPE was 75% and the specificity was 87.01%. Moderate agreement was observed between the two tests (Kappa coefficient=0.428). The sensitivity of TVS in diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia in comparison to HPE was 37.5% and the specificity was 90.91%. Moderate agreement was observed between the two tests (Kappa coefficient=0.255) (Table/Fig 4), [Table/Fig-4a].

The sensitivity of TVS and hysteroscopy together in diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia in comparison to HPE was 37.5% and the specificity was 97.4%. Moderate agreement was observed between the two tests (Kappa coefficient=0.42) (Table/Fig 5). The sensitivity of TVS in diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia in comparison to hysteroscopy was 31.25% and the specificity was 92.75%. The positive and negative predictive values were 50% and 85.33%, respectively. Moderate agreement was observed between the two tests (Kappa coefficient=0.28).

Among patients with positive findings hyperplastic endometrium was found to be the commonest 16 (18.8%), followed by fluffy endometrium 14 (16.5%) on hysteroscopic examination (Table/Fig 6).

The sensitivity of hysteroscopy in diagnosis of polyp in comparison to HPE was 100.0% and the specificity was 97.3%. Good agreement was observed between the two tests (Kappa coefficient=0.713) (Table/Fig 7). Histopathologic examination revealed the presence of hyperplastic endometrium in 9.4% and endometrial polyp in 12.9% of the study participants (Table/Fig 8).

The sensitivity and specificity of TVS in diagnosis of polyp in comparison to HPE was 9.09% and 93.24%, respectively (Table/Fig 9). The specificity of TVS+Hysteroscopy in diagnosis of polyp in comparison to HPE was 100%. The negative predictive value was 88.10% (Table/Fig 10). The sensitivity of TVS in diagnosis of endometrial polyp in comparison to hysteroscopy is observed to be 7.69% and specificity is 93.06%. Specificity of TVS in diagnosis of endometrial polyp in comparison with Hysteroscopy is observed to be 93.06% and the negative predictive value was calculated to be 84.81%.

Out of 16 cases of endometrial hyperplasia detected by hysteroscopy, six cases were detected by HPE (Table/Fig 11). One cervical fibroid and one endometrioid carcinoma were detected in two cases (Table/Fig 12).

Discussion

In this study, majority of the patients were in the age group of 41-50 years (52.9%) followed by 31-40 years who represented 36.5% of the study population. The youngest patient was 29-year-old and the eldest was 55-year-old

Krishnamoorthy N et al., conducted a study on 100 women with AUB and the mean age of the patients was 42.9 years (3). Majority of the patients were in normal weight (51.8%) classified according to BMI. A 36.5% were found to be overweight and 11.8% of them were obese. This is in contrast to a study done by El-Khayat W et al., where 77% patients were obese (12). The maximum number of patients suffered for a period of >1 month to less than 6 months (34.1%) while 21.2% of the patients had their symptoms for a period of less than a month. A 12.9% of patients had their symptoms for more than a year and have resorted to various forms of supportive therapy.

Tahir MM et al., studied 400 women all above the age of 35 years with the maximum incidence between 40 and 50 years which is in agreement with this study (Table/Fig 13) (5),(8),(13),(14),(15),(16),(17). In this study, 75 (88.3%) patients were multiparous and 3 (3.5%) patients were nulliparous. This is in agreement with a study conducted by Krishnamoorthy N et al., where 97 patients were multiparous and 3 were nulliparous (3). (Table/Fig 14) (3),(12),(14),(18),(19),(20).

Comparing the duration of symptoms, in this study, it appears that maximum patients seek medical opinion within 6 months after the start of their symptoms. In a study conducted by Kathuria R and Bhatnagar B, the majority of patients seek medical help after suffering for 3-6 months’ time (50%) which agrees with our study (17). The uterine size on clinical examination was normal in only 10.6% patients. This is in contrast to a study done by Pal L et al., where the uterus was classified as normal size in 63% patients (5). HMB was the most common presenting symptom reported in 83(97.6%) patients. Inter-menstrual bleeding was the complaint in only one (1.2%) patient (Table/Fig 15) (3),(8),(12),(14),(17),(21),(22),(23).

Post coital bleeding was the complaint in only one patient (1.2%). In a study by Khaturia R et al., the commonest presenting complaint was menorrhagia (46%) followed by polymenorrhoea (30%) and metrorrhagia (18%) (17). These studies correlate with our findings. A study by Krishnamoorthy N et al., had 71 patients with menorrhagia and 8 patients with metrorrhagia (3).

The most common lesion detected by TVS is uterine fibroids (43.52%) followed by endometrial hyperplasia. In a study conducted by Haq K et al., the commonest lesion detected by TVS is fibroids (42%) which are in line with our study (24). The commonest lesion detected by hysteroscopy in our study is also fibroid uterus (22.37%) followed by endometrial hyperplasia (18.8%). This was comparable with a study conducted by El-khayat W et al., where hysteroscopy detected endometrial hyperplasia in 20% cases (12). Histopathology diagnosed 11 cases of polyps (12.9%) followed by endometrial hyperplasia (9.4%). In a study conducted by El-khayat W et al., histopathology diagnosed endometrial polyp in 13 cases (26%) (12). TVS detected 37 cases of fibroid uterus of which 15.3% were anterior wall fibroid, 14.1% were posterior wall fibroid and both anterior and posterior wall fibroid were seen in 5.9% of them. Out of the 37 fibroids detected by TVS, 19 fibroids were picked up by hysteroscopy also. The sensitivity of TVS in diagnosis of uterine fibroid in comparison to hysteroscopy was 94.74% and specificity was 71.21% (Table/Fig 16) (3),(18),(25),(26). Fedele L et al., studied the efficacy of TVS and hysteroscopy in detecting submucous myomas (27). TVS was found to be 100% sensitive and 94% specific in diagnosing submucous myomas in the study conducted by Fedele L et al. TVS also detected 6 (7.1%) cases of adenomyosis and the diagnosis of adenomyosis was made by the typical USG findings like anteroposterior asymmetry of the myometrium, poor endomyometrial differentiation and presence of myometrial cysts. But hysteroscopy did not detect any case of adenomyosis. Histological confirmation was not possible for fibroids and adenomyosis due to nonavailability of representative sample and most patients were treated with conservative management.

TVS detected five endometrial polyps (5.9%) and one cervical polyp, out of which only cervical polyp (1.2%) was detected by hysteroscopy and later confirmed by histopathology also. All the five endometrial polyps diagnosed by TVS turned out to be 2 cases of endometrial hyperplasia, two cases of fluffy endometrium and one normal endometrium in hysteroscopy but all the 5 cases turned out to be either proliferative or secretory endometrium in HPE. The sensitivity of TVS in diagnosis of endometrial polyp in comparison to hysteroscopy is observed to be 7.69% and specificity is 93.06%. The sensitivity of TVS keeping HPE as gold standard is 9.09% and 93.24%. The sensitivity and specificity of TVS in detecting polyps were 56.25% and 91.67% respectively in a study conducted by Krishnamoorthy N et al., (Table/Fig 17) (3),(18),(26),(28),(29). TVS detected 13 cases of endometrial hyperplasia. Endometrial thickness of >15 mm was considered as endometrial hyperplasia in TVS. Out of these 13 cases, hysteroscopy showed seven cases of endometrial hyperplasia and three cases were confirmed as endometrial hyperplasia in histopathology. The sensitivity of TVS in detection of endometrial hyperplasia with histopathology as gold standard is 37.5% and specificity is 87.01%. This is in correlation with a study conducted by Krishnamoorthy N et al., which gave sensitivity and specificity of TVS in diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia as 45.71% and 75.56% (Table/Fig 18) (3),(18),(26).

Hysteroscopy diagnosed 16 cases of endometrial hyperplasia of which 6 cases were confirmed by HPE. In our study, the sensitivity of hysteroscopy in diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia in comparison to HPE is 75% and specificity is 87.01%. In a study by Sheetal GP et al., the sensitivity and specificity of hysteroscopy to detect endometrial hyperplasia was found to be 75% and 92.5% which is comparable to our study (Table/Fig 19) (3),(25),(26),(30),(31),(32).

Hysteroscopy diagnosed five endometrial polyps and eight cervical polyps where 11 cases were confirmed by histopathology. The sensitivity of hysteroscopy in diagnosis of polyp keeping HPE as gold standard is 100% and specificity is 97.3%. The highest sensitivity and specificity by hysteroscopy was found for endometrial polyps in this study which was similar to other studies. Sheetal GP et al., reported a sensitivity and a specificity of 100% and 95.78% for endometrial polyps (Table/Fig 20) (3),(14),(26),(30),(31),(33),(34).

Hysteroscopy detected 19 cases of fibroids of which one was cervical fibroid which in biopsy turned out to be cervical dysplasia. Hysteroscopy also showed two cases of atrophic endometrium, one case of septate uterus and one case with hysteroscopic appearance similar to products of conception.

The above findings indicate that each modality has its own limitations. The accuracy of TVS in the diagnosis of IM fibroids is good but it cannot differentiate between endometrial polyps, hyperplasia and early cancers. Hysteroscopy is superior to TVS in the diagnosis of intracavitary lesions like polyps and submucous myoma. Krishnamoorthy N et al., give similar conclusions in their study (3). Barati M et al., recommend hysteroscopy for patients with AUB as a second step even if TVS is normal (13).

Baskett TF et al., studied the efficiency of a one stop menstrual clinic to demonstrate the cost and clinical effectiveness of using hysteroscopy as a preliminary investigation performed at the initial visit in selected patients (35). The results of our study agree with their rationale. Compared to TVS, hysteroscopy gives a direct visualisation of the endometrial cavity and hence detects any focal lesion. TVS has a good sensitivity in detecting fibroids. Negative predictive value of TVS for detection of fibroids was 97.92%. But TVS was poorly sensitive (37.5%) in detecting endometrial hyperplasia but its negative predictive value is 93.06%. TVS showed poor sensitivity in detecting polyps (9.09%), whereas hysteroscopy showed highest sensitivity in detecting polyps (100%). Sensitivity of hysteroscopy in diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia was 75% but it had a good negative predictive value of 97.1%.

In one study, Epstein E et al., sensitivity and specificity of hysteroscopy were 100% and 84%, respectively; which agree with our results (36). In another study carried out in UK by Tahir MM et al., 400 patients with AUB were investigated (16). For the first step, transvaginal sonography and endometrial biopsy, and as the second step, hysteroscopy were recommended and it agrees with the current study. In another study in Italy by Garuti G et al., 419 patients with AUB were considered (20). It again demonstrated that transvaginal sonography was a suitable diagnostic method for the first step, but hysteroscopy was more accurate than transvaginal sonography. Similarly, Mathlouthi N et al., and Yela DA et al., found diagnostic values favoured hysteroscopy to diagnose uterine pathologies (37),(38). In another study in Turkey by Kelekci S et al., for diagnosis of intra uterine lesions in patients with or without AUB; trans-vaginal sonography and hysteroscopy were carried out. Sensitivity and specificity of trans-vaginal sonography were 56.3% and 100%, respectively (39). Also, hysteroscopy had 81.3% sensitivity and 100% specificity. Therefore, hysteroscopy is one of the best methods to detect the polyps for this area. According to high conformity between the hysteroscopy and pathology, diagnostic ability of hysteroscopy was higher than transvaginal sonography. Therefore, it is recommended that patient with AUB whose transvaginal sonography is normal, hysteroscopy is considered to be as the second step. Trans-vaginal ultrasonography is a widely available, comparatively cheap and practical method to diagnose uterine pathologies. It is noninvasive and causes minimal discomfort to the patient. Therefore, it is mostly used as the initial modality in patients with AUB. It is a very helpful tool for screening. Although one histopathological report of endometrial cancer have been observed, no ultrasound report was suggestive of malignancy, similarly to the study of Grimbizis GF et al., in which TVS was also not able to discriminate hyperplasia or endometrial cancer from other intracavitary lesions (40). The sensitivity of TVS to detect uterine fibroids in comparison to hysteroscopy was 94.74%. But the sensitivity of TVS to detect endometrial hyperplasia taking histopathology as gold standard is 37.5% only. But the sensitivity of hysteroscopy in diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia was 75% and diagnosis of polyp was 100%. Combined approach of TVS and hysteroscopy did not give a much improvement in sensitivity of TVS. Hence, a much invasive approach hysteroscopy can be made as a one step approach in diagnosis of endometrial pathology in AUB but TVS alone is not sufficient to diagnose endometrial hyperplasia. But TVS is a single step modality to detect uterine fibroids in AUB.

Limitation(s)

Hysteroscopic procedure was carried out by many gynaecologists with different level of experience and not by a consistent hysteroscopist, Subjective variation was unavoidable. Histological confirmation was not included for fibroids and adenomyosis due to conservative management in many patients.

Conclusion

Transvaginal Ultrasonography had a high sensitivity to detect fibroids but its value in detecting hyperplasia and polyps was in question in our study. But hysteroscopy had a maximum sensitivity to detect polyps and high sensitivity to detect endometrial hyperplasia compared to histopathology taken as a gold standard investigation. Therefore, it is recommended that patient with AUB whose transvaginal sonography is normal, hysteroscopy is considered to be as the second step. To conclude, a combination of all the three modalities (Transvaginal sonography/hysteroscopy and endometrial biopsy) was found to increase the diagnostic accuracy in patients with AUB and will effectively guide us in planning the appropriate management for these patients. Adequate diagnosis is crucial for the selection of relevant treatment of AUB and avoidance of major surgical procedures. Even though TVU is a good tool for the initial evaluation of uterine pathologies, a hysteroscopy examination is essential in the majority of the doubtful cases. Hysteroscopy offers better diagnostic value for uterine pathologies, and uterine polyps in particular.

References

1.
Mahapatra M, Mishra P. Clinicopathological evaluation of abnormal uterine bleeding. Journal of Health Research and Reviews. 2015;2:45-49. [crossref]
2.
Singh A, Anant M. The evaluative role of diagnostic hysteroscopy and ultrasonography in abnormal uterine bleeding. International Journal of Research in Medical Sciences. 2017;5(3):1002-06. ISSN 2320-6012. Available at: < https://www.msjonline.org/index.php/ijrms/article/view/511 >. [crossref]
3.
Krishnamoorthy N, Fatima Shanthini N. Role of transvaginal sonography and hysteroscopy in abnormal uterine bleeding: Does the diagnostic yield increase by combining transvaginal sonography, hysteroscopy and biopsy? International Journal of Reproduction, Contraception, Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2017;3(4):919-23. ISSN 2320-1789. Available at: < https://www.ijrcog.org/index.php/ijrcog/article/view/1288 >. [crossref]
4.
Bosteels J, van Wessel S, Weyers S, Broekmans FJ, D’Hooghe TM, Bongers MY, et al. Hysteroscopy for treating subfertility associated with suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;12(12):CD009461. Published 2018 Dec 5. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD009461.pub4. [crossref] [PubMed]
5.
Pal L, Lapensee L, Toth TL, Isaacson KB. Comparison of office hysteroscopy, transvaginal ultrasonography and endometrial biopsy in evaluation of abnormal uterine bleeding. JSLS: Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons. 1997;1(2):125.
6.
Swathi GR, Nataraja MK, Shetty SS. A comparative study of hysteroscopy and transvaginal ultrasonography in diagnosis of endometrial pathology in abnormal uterine bleeding. International Journal of Reproduction, Contraception, Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2020;9(5):1772-78. [crossref]
7.
Baghel P, Janjgir S, Sharma M, Mehta S. Role of hysteroscopy vs transvaginal sonography in diagnosis of abnormal uterine bleeding. International Journal of Health sciences and Research. 2018;8(12):121-26.
8.
Goyal BK, Gaur I, Sharma S, Saha A, Das NK. Transvaginalsonography versus hysteroscopy in evaluation of abnormal uterine bleeding. Med J Armed Forces India. 2015;71(2):120-25. Doi: 10.1016/j.mjafi.2014.12.001. Epub 2015 Feb 16. PMID: 25859072; PMCID: PMC4388967. [crossref] [PubMed]
9.
Heavy menstrual bleeding (NICE clinical guideline 44) [amended in 2018].
10.
Moorthy RS. Transvaginal sonography. Med J Armed Forces India. 2000;56(3):181-83. Doi:10.1016/S0377-1237(17)30160-0. [crossref]
11.
Indman PD. Instrumentation and distention media for the hysteroscopic treatment of abnormal uterine bleeding. Obstet Gynaecol Clin North Am. 2000;27(2):305-15. [crossref]
12.
El-khayat W, Sleet ME, Mahdi EY. Comparative study of transvaginalsonography and hysteroscopy for the detection of pathological endometrial lesions in women with perimenopausal bleeding. Middle East Fertility Society Journal. 2011;16(1):77-82. [crossref]
13.
Barati M, Masihi S, Moramezi F, Salemi, S. Office hysteroscopy in patients with abnormal uterine bleeding and normal transvaginal sonography. International Journal of Fertility and Sterility. 2008;1(4):175-78. Doi: 10.22074/ijfs.2007.46212.
14.
Kumari M, Gupta AS. A prospective comparative study to evaluate the efficacy of ultrasonography and hysteroscopy and their correlation with the histopathology of endometrium in a case of abnormal uterine bleeding. International Journal of Reproduction, Contraception, Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2017;4(6):1926-35. [crossref]
15.
van Trotsenburg M, Wieser F, Nagele F. Diagnostic hysteroscopy for the investigation of abnormal uterine bleeding in premenopausal patients. Contrib Gynaecol Obstet. 2000;20:21-26. Doi: 10.1159/000060284. PMID: 11791282. [crossref] [PubMed]
16.
Tahir MM, Bigrigg MA, Browning JJ, Brookes ST, Smith PA. A randomised controlled trial comparing transvaginal ultrasound, outpatient hysteroscopy and endometrial biopsy with inpatient hysteroscopy and curettage. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1999;106(12):1259-64. Doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1999.tb08179.x. PMID: 10609719. [crossref] [PubMed]
17.
Kathuria R, Bhatnagar B. Correlation between D&C, USG and Hysteroscopy Findings in diagnosing a cause for abnormal uterine bleeding. Indian Journal of Clinical Practice. 2014;25(5).
18.
Wanderley MS, Monteiro ÁM, Brito VMdF, Paravidine SLM. Accuracy of transvaginal ultrasonography, hysteroscopy and uterine curettage in evaluating endometrial pathologies. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. [Internet]. 2016 Oct [cited 2021 Jan 31];38(10):506-11. [crossref] [PubMed]
19.
Bhosle A, Fonseca M. Evaluation and histopathological correlation of abnormal uterine bleeding in perimenopausal women. Bombay Hospital Journal. 2010;52(1):69-72.
20.
Nandan N, Manjeera L, Rai S, Gowri M. Diagnostic hysteroscopy in abnormal uterine bleeding and it’s histopathologic correlation: Our experience. NUJHS. 2013;3(2):013-17. [crossref]
21.
Babacan A, Gun I, Kizilaslan C, Ozden O, Muhcu M, Mungen E, Atay V. Comparison of transvaginal ultrasonography and hysteroscopy in the diagnosis of uterine pathologies. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2014;7(3):764-69. PMID: 24753775; PMCID: PMC3992420.
22.
Varma R, Soneja H, Clark TJ, Gupta JK. Hysteroscopic myomectomy for menorrhagia using Versascope bipolar system: efficacy and prognostic factors at a minimum of one year follow up. Eur J Obstet Gynaecol Reprod Biol. 2009;142(2):154-59. Doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2008.10.006. Epub 2008 Nov 25. PMID: 19036492. [crossref] [PubMed]
23.
Panda A, Parulekar SV, Gupta A. Diagnostic hysteroscopy in abnormal uterine bleeding and histopathological correlation. J Obstet Gynaecol India. 1999;49:74-76.
24.
Haq K, Chowdhury SF, Mannan M, Ivy R, Tasnim KS. Transvaginal ultrasonography is the diagnostic method for evaluation of abnormal uterine bleeding. Journal of Shaheed Suhrawardy Medical College. 2012;1(1):11-13. [crossref]
25.
Vercellini P, Cortesi I, Oldani S, Moschetta M, De Giorgi O, Crosignani PG. The role of transvaginal ultrasonography and outpatient diagnostic hysteroscopy in the evaluation of patients with menorrhagia. Human reproduction (Oxford, England). 1997;12(8):1768-71. [crossref] [PubMed]
26.
Balic´ D, Balic´ A. Office hysteroscopy, transvaginal ultrasound and endometrial histology: A comparison in infertile patients. Acta Medica Academica. 2011;40:34-38. 10.5644/ama2006-124.6. [crossref]
27.
Fedele L, Bianchi S, Dorta M, Brioschi D, Zanotti F, Vercellini P. Transvaginal ultrasonography versus hysteroscopy in the diagnosis of uterine submucousmyomas. Obstetrics & Gynaecology. 1991;77(5):745-48.
28.
Feitosa IMSD, Feitosa HN, Carvalho FHC, Pereira SM, Medeiros FdC. Comparison between transvaginal ultrasonography and sonohysterography in the assessment of patients with abnormal uterine bleeding. Radiol Bras [Internet]. 2011 June [cited 2021 Jan 31];44(3):156-62. [crossref]
29.
Makled AK, Farghali MM, Shenouda DS. Role of hysteroscopy and endometrial biopsy in women with unexplained infertility. Arch Gynaecol Obstet. 2014;289(1):187-92. Doi: 10.1007/s00404-013-2931-8. Epub 2013 Jul 20. PMID: 23872980. [crossref] [PubMed]
30.
Sheetal GP, Bhute SB, Inamdar SA, Acharya NS, Shrivastava DS. Role of diagnostic hysteroscopy in abnormal uterine bleeding and its histopathological correlation. J Endosc Surg. 2009;1(2):98-104. [crossref] [PubMed]
31.
Bettocchi S, Nappi L, Ceci O, Selvaggi L. Office hysteroscopy. Obstet Gynaecol Clin North Am. 2004;31(3):641-54, xi. Doi: 10.1016/j.ogc.2004.05.007. PMID: 15450325. [crossref] [PubMed]
32.
Fakhar S, Mahmud G. Validity of hysteroscopy and histopathology in patients with menstrual irregularity. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2010;22(1):129-32. PMID: 21409924.
33.
Mukhopadhayay S, Bhattacharyya SK, Ganguly RP, Patra KK, Bhattacharya N, Barman SC. Comparative evaluation of perimenopausal abnormal uterine bleeding by transvaginal sonography, hysteroscopy and endometrial biopsy. J Indian Med Assoc. 2007;105(11):624,26,28 passim. PMID: 18405088.
34.
Allameh T, Mohammadizadeh F. Diagnostic value of hysteroscopy in abnormal uterine bleeding compared to pathology reports. Iranian Journal of Reproductive Medicine. 2007;5(2):61-64
35.
Baskett TF, O’Connor H, Magos AL. A comprehensive one-stop menstrual problem clinic for the diagnosis and management of abnormal uterine bleeding. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1996;103(1):76-77. Doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1996.tb09518.x. PMID: 8608102. [crossref] [PubMed]
36.
Epstein E, Ramirez A, Skoog L, Valentin L. Transvaginalsonography, saline contrast sonohysterography and hysteroscopy for the investigation of women with postmenopausal bleeding and endometrium >5 mm. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynaecology. 2001;18(2):157-62. [crossref] [PubMed]
37.
Mathlouthi N, Slimani O, Ferchichi A, Ben TR, Makhlouf T, Attia L, et al. Postmenopausal bleeding. Comparison between ultrasonography, hysteroscopy and histology results. La Tunisiemedicale. 2013;91(2):99-103.
38.
Yela DA, Ravacci SH, Monteiro IM, Pereira KC, Gabiatti JR. Comparative study of transvaginal sonography and outpatient hysteroscopy for detection of pathologic endometrial lesions in postmenopausal women. Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira. 2009;55(5):553-56. [crossref] [PubMed]
39.
Kelekci S, Kaya E, Alan M, Alan Y, Bilge U, Mollamahmutoglu L. Comparison of transvaginal sonography, saline infusion sonography, and office hysteroscopy in reproductive-aged women with or without abnormal uterine bleeding. Fertility and Sterility. 2005;84(3):682-86. [crossref] [PubMed]
40.
Grimbizis GF, Tsolakidis D, Mikos T, Anagnostou E, Asimakopoulos E, Stamatopoulos P, et al. A prospective comparison of transvaginal ultrasound, saline infusion sonohysterography, and diagnostic hysteroscopy in the evaluation of endometrial pathology. Fertility and Sterility. 2010;94(7):2720-25. [crossref] [PubMed]

DOI and Others

10.7860/JCDR/2021/46163.15095

Date of Submission: Aug 01, 2020
Date of Peer Review: Oct 20, 2020
Date of Acceptance: Mar 30, 2021
Date of Publishing: Jul 01, 2021

AUTHOR DECLARATION:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. NA

PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Aug 01, 2020
• Manual Googling: Mar 30, 2021
• iThenticate Software: Apr 29, 2021 (17%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com