Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35059616›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2022

A new validated screening method for endometriosis diagnosis based on patient questionnaires.

Charles Chapron, Marie-Christine Lafay-Pillet, Pietro Santulli, Mathilde Bourdon, Chloé Maignien, Antoine Gaudet-Chardonnet, Lorraine Maitrot-Mantelet, Bruno Borghese, Louis Marcellin

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
11.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 64 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Charles ChapronUniversité de Paris, Faculté de Santé, Faculté de Médicine Paris Centre, Paris, France.
Marie-Christine Lafay-PilletAssistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), Hôpital Universitaire Paris Centre (HUPC), Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU) Cochin, Department of Gynecology Obstetrics II and Reproductive Medicine (Professor Chapron), Paris, France.
Pietro SantulliUniversité de Paris, Faculté de Santé, Faculté de Médicine Paris Centre, Paris, France.
Mathilde BourdonUniversité de Paris, Faculté de Santé, Faculté de Médicine Paris Centre, Paris, France.
Chloé MaignienAssistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), Hôpital Universitaire Paris Centre (HUPC), Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU) Cochin, Department of Gynecology Obstetrics II and Reproductive Medicine (Professor Chapron), Paris, France.
Antoine Gaudet-ChardonnetAssistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), Hôpital Universitaire Paris Centre (HUPC), Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU) Cochin, Department of Gynecology Obstetrics II and Reproductive Medicine (Professor Chapron), Paris, France.
Lorraine Maitrot-ManteletAssistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), Hôpital Universitaire Paris Centre (HUPC), Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU) Cochin, Department of Gynecology Obstetrics II and Reproductive Medicine (Professor Chapron), Paris, France.
Bruno BorgheseUniversité de Paris, Faculté de Santé, Faculté de Médicine Paris Centre, Paris, France.
Louis MarcellinUniversité de Paris, Faculté de Santé, Faculté de Médicine Paris Centre, Paris, France.
Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris · FRInserm · FRUniversité Paris Cité · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe time between symptoms onset and endometriosis diagnosis is usually long. The negative impacts of delayed endometriosis diagnosis can affect patients and health outcomes.

methodsWe conducted a case-control study using clinical symptoms and epidemiological data extracted from a prospective pre-operative patient questionnaire compared between patients with histologically proven endometriosis and patients with no endometriosis at surgical exploration from 2005 to 2018, in a French referral center. We used the beta coefficients of the significant variables introduced in a multiple regression model to devise a score (score 1), evaluated by the area under the curve (or C-index), with three levels, defined by a score between 1 and ≥ 25: (i) highly specific, identifying correctly the patients without the disease; (ii) highly sensitive, identifying the patients with the disease; and (iii) a level maximizing sensitivity and specificity for the best classification of the whole population. To minimize patient self-evaluation of pain, we devised a second score (score 2) with the same method and levels and scores definition, excluding visual analog scale pain scores, except for dysmenorrhea. These scores were validated on an internal and external population.

findingsScore 1 had a C-index of 0.81 (95% CI [0.79-0.83]). Results for the three score 1 levels were: ≥ 25: specificity of 91% (95% CI [89-93]); < 11: sensitivity of 91% (95% CI [89-93]); ≥ 18: specificity of 75% (95% CI [72-78]) and sensitivity of 73% (95% CI [70-76]). Score 2 had a C-index of 0.75 (95% CI [73-77]). The three levels of score 2 were: ≥ 24: specificity of 82% (95% CI [80-85]); < 7: sensitivity of 92% (95% CI [90-94]); ≥ 17: specificity of 62% (95% CI [58-65]) and sensitivity of 78% (95% CI [75-81]). The two scores were internally and externally validated.

interpretationA score based only on a patient questionnaire could allow identification of a population at high risk of endometriosis. This strategy might help referral to specialized radiologists for a non-surgical endometriosis scan.

fundingNone.

Indexed as

Clinical diagnosisClinical scoreEndometriosisExternal validationLmaging work-upMultivariate regression analysisNew paradigmQuestionnaire

Identifiers

PMID35059616
PMCPMC8760436
OpenAlexW4206342245

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.