Evidence map›Paper›PMID 14663128›Full record

ArticleSexually transmitted infections2003

Diagnosis of pelvic inflammatory disease: time for a rethink.

I Simms, F Warburton, L Weström

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sexually transmitted infections, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 96 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Relation betweenSexually transmitted infections · 2019
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. A practical approach to the diagnosis of pelvic inflammatory disease.Infectious diseases in obstetrics and gynecology · 2011
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

I SimmsHPA Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, London, UK. ian.simms@hpa.org.uk
F Warburton
L Weström
Public Health England · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo critically evaluate the available evidence base concerned with the diagnosis of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) based on clinical presentation, and to investigate the relation between signs and symptoms and the presence of laparoscopically diagnosed PID using the largest available dataset.

methodsThe evidence base was critically evaluated and data collected by Lund University between 1960 and 1969 were used to compare clinical presentation with the results of laparoscopic investigation. Three techniques were used in this investigation-sensitivity and specificity, likelihood ratios, and discriminant analysis.

resultsNone of the variables (abnormal vaginal discharge, fever >38 degrees C, vomiting, menstrual irregularity, ongoing bleeding, symptoms of urethritis, rectal temperature >38 degrees C, marked tenderness of pelvic organs on bimanual examination, adnexal mass, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate >or=15 mm in the first hour) had both high specificity and sensitivity-most had low specificity and sensitivity. There was little variation in either the likelihood ratios or the post-test probabilities between the variables. The lowest likelihood ratio (0.97) produced a post-test probability of 78% (95% CI: 74% to 81%) whereas the highest (1.73) had a post-test probability of 84% (95% CI: 81% to 87%). The pretest probability of having PID based on the presence of lower abdominal pain was 79% (95% CI: 76% to 82%). The discriminant analysis indicated that three variables significantly influenced the prediction of the presence of PID: erythrocyte sedimentation rate (p<0.0001), fever (p<0.0001), and adnexal tenderness (p<0.0001). These variables correctly classified 65% of patients with laparoscopically diagnosed PID (95% CI: 61% to 69%).

conclusionThere is insufficient evidence to support existing diagnostic criteria, which have been based on a combination of empirical data and expert opinion. A new evidence base is urgently needed but this will require either a new investigation of the association between clinical presentation and PID based on a laparoscopic "gold standard" or the development of new diagnostic techniques.

Indexed as

Blood SedimentationDiscriminant AnalysisEvidence-Based MedicineFemaleFeverHumansLaparoscopyPelvic Inflammatory DiseasePelvic PainPhysical ExaminationRisk FactorsSensitivity and SpecificityVaginal Discharge

Identifiers

PMID14663128
PMCPMC1744780
OpenAlexW2134016525

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.