Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25783643›Full record

Observational studyBMC women's health2015

Endometriosis node in gynaecologic scars: a study of 17 patients and the diagnostic considerations in clinical experience in tertiary care center.

Rocío Vellido-Cotelo, Jose L Muñoz-González, Maria R Oliver-Pérez, Cristina de la Hera-Lázaro, Cristina Almansa-González, Concepción Pérez-Sagaseta, Jesús S Jiménez-López

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC women's health, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
11.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 77 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Clinical Features and Management of Umbilical Endometriosis: A 30 Years' Monocentric Retrospective Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Abdominal wall endometriosis (a narrative review).International journal of medical sciences · 2020
    Review
  17. Cutaneous endometriosis.International journal of women's dermatology · 2019
    Article
  18. Abdominal wall endometriosis: An 11-year retrospective observational cohort study.European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X · 2019
    Article
  19. Post-cesarean scar endometriosis.Turkish journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2018
    Article
  20. Clinical and imaging features of abdominal wall endometriomas.Australasian journal of ultrasound in medicine · 2018
    Review
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

7 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Rocío Vellido-CoteloEndometriosis Unit, Universitary Hospital, 12 de Octubre, Madrid, Spain, rociovellidoconuve@hotmail.com.
Jose L Muñoz-González
Maria R Oliver-Pérez
Cristina de la Hera-Lázaro
Cristina Almansa-González
Concepción Pérez-Sagaseta
Jesús S Jiménez-López
Research Institute Hospital 12 de Octubre · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEndometriosis nodes are observed in extra pelvic locations, particularly in gynaecological scars, with the abdominal wall being one of the most frequent locations. The main objective of the study is to review patient characteristics of cases of endometriosis nodes in gynaecological scars.

methodsA retrospective, observational and descriptive study with a cohort of patients from Hospital 12 de Octubre was conducted from January 2000 to January 2012. We analysed all of the patients who presented with an endometriosis node in a gynaecological scar presentation who had undergone surgery in that period. Descriptive data were collected and analysed.

resultsA total of 17 patients with an anatomopathological diagnosis of an endometriosis node in a gynaecological scar were found. The following variables were studied: the age at diagnosis (32.5 years +/- 5.5 years), personal and obstetric history, time from surgery to diagnosis (4.2 years +/- 3.4 years), symptoms (a painful mass that grows during menstruation is the most frequent symptom in our patients), technical analyses by computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance (MR) or fine needle aspiration (FNA) (77% of the patients), node size (2.5 cm +/- 1.1 cm) and location (caesarean scar, 82%; episiotomy scar, 11.7%; and laparoscopic surgery port, 5.8%), involvement of adjacent structures (29% of the patients), treatment (exeresis with a security margin in all the patients) and other endometriosis locations (14% of the patients).

conclusionsA high level of suspicion is required to diagnose gynaecological scar endometriosis, which should be suspected in the differential diagnosis of scar masses in reproductive-aged women. Several theories have been proposed to explain the formation of endometriosis nodes in extrauterine localizations. The two of them that seem to be more plausible are the metaplasia and transport theories. Imaging with ultrasound, CT and MR facilitate the diagnosis. FNA could be used for preoperative diagnosis. Treatment must be by node resection with a security margin. In some cases, surgery could be combined with hormonal treatment.

Indexed as

Cesarean SectionEpisiotomyGynecologic Surgical ProceduresAbdominal WallAdultBiopsy, Fine-NeedleCicatrixCohort StudiesEndometriosisFemaleHumansLaparoscopyMagnetic Resonance ImagingRetrospective StudiesSkin DiseasesTertiary Care Centers

Identifiers

PMID25783643
PMCPMC4337097
OpenAlexW2029089084

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.