Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35794928›Full record

ReviewReproduction & fertility2022

'Seeing is believing': arguing for diagnostic laparoscopy as a diagnostic test for endometriosis.

Jason Mak, Mathew Leonardi, George Condous

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Reproduction & fertility, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Jason MakAcute Gynaecology, Early Pregnancy and Advanced Endosurgery Unit, Nepean Hospital, Sydney Medical School Nepean, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Mathew LeonardiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
George CondousAcute Gynaecology, Early Pregnancy and Advanced Endosurgery Unit, Nepean Hospital, Sydney Medical School Nepean, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2346-6850
The University of Sydney · AUMcMaster University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Endometriosis is a benign disease that can cause pain and infertility in women. Debate exists over how endometriosis should best be diagnosed. On one hand, endometriosis can be diagnosed by directly examining pelvic anatomy via a surgical procedure known as diagnostic laparoscopy. On the other hand, the disease can be diagnosed via non-surgical means such as using medical imaging, the symptoms described by the patient and whether the patient responds to non-surgical therapies such as medication. In this debate article, we argue in favour of diagnostic laparoscopy. We review the safety of the procedure, compare the ability of diagnostic laparoscopy vs medical imaging to detect endometriosis and consider the benefits of formally diagnosing or ruling out the condition.

Indexed as

EndometriosisLaparoscopyAnimalsDiagnostic Tests, RoutineFemaleHumansPelvic PainPelvisService Animalsdebatediagnostic laparoscopyendometriosissurgery

Identifiers

PMID35794928
PMCPMC9254269
OpenAlexW4281759485

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.