ArticleObstetrics & gynecology science2022
Development of an endometriosis self-assessment tool for patient.
Article in Obstetrics & gynecology science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Exploring Self-Reported Symptoms for Developing and Evaluating Digital Symptom Checkers for Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome, Endometriosis, and Uterine Fibroids: Exploratory Survey Study.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Minimally invasive surgery for deep endometriosis.Obstetrics & gynecology science · 2024Article
- Assessment of a Digital Symptom Checker Tool's Accuracy in Suggesting Reproductive Health Conditions: Clinical Vignettes Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to develop and verify an endometriosis self-assessment tool (ESAT).
methodsA non-experimental, descriptive, correlational study design was used. Candidate items were developed based on a conceptual framework constructed using the results of in-depth interviews and an integrative literature review. The construct validity of the developed tool was also examined. One-hundred and forty-two participants (117 patients with endometriosis and 25 patients without endometriosis) were included in the validity and reliability tests. The data were collected between August and December 2018. Nomological validity was verified based on significant correlations between the ESAT and the quality-of-life scores.
resultsA 21-item ESAT was developed, and its construct validity was supported. Exploratory factor analysis indicated that the tool consisted of four components (gastrointestinal symptoms, dysmenorrhea, usual symptoms, and the amount and characteristics of menstrual bleeding) with a variance of 61.6%. The variance in quality-of-life scores, as explained by the ESAT scores, was relatively high. Receiver operator characteristics curve analysis indicated that ESAT scores significantly differentiated endometriosis from non-endometriosis with fair discriminatory power at a cut-off score of 50 (sensitivity, 0.76; specificity, 0.72; area under the curve, >0.75; P<0.001). This means that patients with ESAT scores >50 points were more likely to have endometriosis. Thus, the reliability of the ESAT was confirmed.
conclusionThe devised tool appears valid and reliable. This tool may allow women to determine their risk of endometriosis by distinguishing between normal and pathological menstruation-related symptoms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.