Table 3 Diagnostic accuracy of 2D US compared with hysteroscopy ± laparoscopy in diagnosing female genital tract congenital anomalies
From: The Thessaloniki ESHRE/ESGE consensus on diagnosis of female genital anomalies
Study | Cases (n) | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | PPV (%) | NPV (%) | Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ludwin et al. [38] | 117 | 91 | 92 | 99 | 52 | 84 |
De Felice et al. [14] | 104 | 100 | 99 | 86 | 100 | 96 |
Momtaz et al. [44] | 38 | 55 | 95 | 84 | 83 | 79 |
Valenzano et al. [58] | 54 | 86 | 100 | 100 | 91 | 94 |
Ragni et al. [50] | 98 | 73 | 100 | 100 | 97 | 93 |
Traina et al. [57] | 80 | 64 | 99 | 88 | 94 | 86 |
Soares et al. [55] | 65 | 44 | 100 | 100 | 92 | 84 |
Alatas et al. [2] | 62 | 50 | 100 | 100 | 97 | 87 |
Nicolini et al. [46] | 89 | 43 | 98 | 94 | 68 | 76 |
Mean (95 % CI) | 67.3 (51.0–83.7) | 98.1 (96.0–100) | 94.6 (89.4–99.8) | 86.0 (73.7–98.3) | 86.6 (81.3–91.8) |