The validity of transvaginal ultrasound measurement of endometrial thickness: a comparison of ultrasound measurement with direct anatomical measurement
Article first published online: 1 OCT 2004
BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology
Volume 111, Issue 12, pages 1419–1424, December 2004
How to Cite
Saha, T. K., Amer, S. A.K.S., Biss, J., Thakare, H., Williams, S., Farrell, T. and Calvert, J. (2004), The validity of transvaginal ultrasound measurement of endometrial thickness: a comparison of ultrasound measurement with direct anatomical measurement. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 111: 1419–1424. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00177.x
- Issue published online: 22 NOV 2004
- Article first published online: 1 OCT 2004
Objectives To compare transvaginal ultrasound measurements of endometrial thickness with direct anatomical measurements and consider the implications of these findings on clinical practice.
Design Prospective observational study using two modalities blinded to each other's findings.
Setting Singleton Hospital, Swansea, a medium-sized District General Hospital.
Sample Forty-seven women admitted for hysterectomy.
Methods All women underwent transvaginal ultrasound scan to measure the endometrial thickness within 16 hours of surgery. Anatomical measurement of the fresh specimen was carried out immediately after surgery.
Main outcome measures Agreement between ultrasound and anatomical measurements of the endometrial thickness.
Results No ultrasound measurement was possible in 15% of patients. When both values were obtained, transvaginal ultrasound measurements were >2 mm different from the ruler measurement in 13/40 (33%) with an obvious tendency of the ultrasound scan to over-estimate the endometrial thickness. The mean difference between the two measurements was −0.8 mm (limits of agreement −7.1 to +5.5 mm). The discrepancy was greater in women with endometrial thickness ≤5 mm (−1.6 mm, limits of agreement −5.7 to +2.6 mm) compared with that in women with endometrial thickness >5 mm (−0.2 mm, limits of agreement −7.6 to +7.2 mm). Kappa statistics showed good agreement between the two measurements in discriminating between thin and thick endometrium in 77% (κ= 0.55). Transvaginal ultrasound misdiagnosed a thick endometrium as thin in 3/40 (8%) and misdiagnosed a thin endometrium as thick in 6/40 (15%).
Conclusions Transvaginal ultrasonography is of limited value as a screening test for abnormal endometrium in patients with postmenopausal bleeding if the only parameter of normality is an endometrial thickness of 5 mm or less.