Diagnostic value of different color ultrasound diagnostic method in endometrial lesions

Table 1 Comparison of the diagnosis conformity situation between the two examination schemes in different types of lesions

Type	Cases, n	Transabdominal color ultrasound, n (%)	Transvaginal color ultrasound, n (%)	χ2	P value
Endometrial carcinoma	10	8 (80.00)	10 (100.00)	22.222	0.001
Endometrial hyperplasia	25	18 (72.00)	22 (88.00)	8.000	0.005
Endometrial polyp	63	40 (63.49)	59 (93.65)	27.012	0.001
Submucous myoma of uterus	42	29 (69.05)	39 (92.86)	18.385	0.001

Table 2 Comparison of image display effect of two inspection methods

Display effect	Transabdominal color ultrasound, n of 140 (%)	Transvaginal color ultrasound, n of 140 (%)	χ2	P value
Excellent	79 (56.43)	106 (75.71)	8.291	0.004
Good	22 (15.71)	21 (15.00)	0.019	0.889
Poor	39 (27.86)	13 (9.29)	11.400	0.001
Showing excellent rate	101 (72.14)	127 (90.71)	11.400	0.001

Table 3 Comparison of endometrial thickness in different lesion types

Endometrial thickness	Endometrial carcinoma, n of 10 (%)	Endometrial hyperplasia, n of 25 (%)	Endometrial polyp, n of 63 (%)	Submucous myoma of uterus, n of 42 (%)	χ2	P value
< 5 mm	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	12 (19.05)	3 (7.14)	36.214	0.001
5-10 mm	0 (0.00)	0 (0.00)	20 (31.75)	24 (57.14)
> 10 mm	10 (100.00)	25 (100.00)	31 (49.21)	15 (35.71)

Table 4 Comparison of the uterine cavity effusion, blood flow display situation and blood flow resistance index of different types of patients

Project	Endometrial carcinoma, n of 10 (%)	Endometrial hyperplasia, n of 25 (%)	Endometrial polyp, n of 63 (%)	Submucous myoma of uterus, n of 42 (%)	χ2/F	P value
Uterine cavity effusion	10 (100.00)	6 (24.00)	10 (15.87)	10 (23.81)	25.631	0.001
Blood flow display situation	10 (100.00)	6 (24.00)	9 (14.29)	9 (21.43)	23.414	0.001
Resistance index	0.34 (0.05)	0.72 (0.11)	0.70 (0.09)	0.53 (0.07)	79.014	0.001