Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37140921›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2023

Multicenter External Validation of the Deep Pelvic Endometriosis Index Magnetic Resonance Imaging Score.

Isabelle Thomassin-Naggara, Michele Monroc, Benoit Chauveau, Arnaud Fauconnier, Pauline Verpillat, Yohann Dabi, Marie Gavrel, Pierre-Adrien Bolze, Emile Darai, Cyril Touboul and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
10.1field-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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Urinary tract endometriosis: Revisiting the definition of ureterolysis.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors at 11 institutions in 1 country.

Isabelle Thomassin-NaggaraDepartment of Radiology, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris-Hôpital Tenon, Paris, France.
Michele MonrocDepartment of Radiology, Clinique Saint-Antoine, Bois-Guillaume, France.
Benoit ChauveauRadiology Department, CHU Estaing Clermont-Ferrand, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Arnaud FauconnierUniversité Paris-Saclay, UVSQ, Unité de recherche 7285 Risques cliniques et sécurité en santé des femmes et en santé périnatale, Montigny-le-Bretonneux, France.
Pauline VerpillatDepartment of Radiology, University of Lille, Lille, France.
Yohann DabiDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris-Sorbonne Université, Hôpital Tenon, Paris, France.
Marie GavrelDepartment of Radiology, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon Sud University Hospital, Lyon 1 Claude Bernard University, EMR 3738, Pierre Bénite, France.
Pierre-Adrien BolzeDepartment of Gynecological and Oncological Surgery, Obstetrics, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon Sud University Hospital, Lyon 1 Claude Bernard University, EMR 3738 CICLY, Pierre Bénite, France.
Emile DaraiDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris-Sorbonne Université, Hôpital Tenon, Paris, France.
Cyril TouboulDepartment of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris-Sorbonne Université, Hôpital Tenon, Paris, France.
Samia LamrabetDepartment of radiology. Centre Hospitalier intercommunal de Creteil.
Pierre CollinetHôpital privé Le Bois, Ramsay Lille métropole, Lille, France.
Elise ZareskiCentre Hospitalier Intercommunal de Poissy-Saint-Germain-en-Laye, Service de Radiologie, Poissy CEDEX, France.
Nicolas BourdelGynecology Department, CHU Estaing Clermont-Ferrand, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Horace RomanIFEMEndo, Clinique Tivoli-Ducos, Bordeaux, France.
Pascal RoussetDepartment of Radiology, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon Sud University Hospital, Lyon 1 Claude Bernard University, EMR 3738, Pierre Bénite, France.
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Clermont-Ferrand · FRHôpital Tenon · FRHospices Civils de Lyon · FRAssistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris · FRCentre Hospitalier Intercommunal de Poissy · FRHôpital Privé Jacques Cartier · FRHôpital Saint-Antoine · FRRisques cliniques et sécurité en santé des femmes et en santé périnataleSorbonne Université · FRUniversité Claude Bernard Lyon 1 · FRUniversité de Lille · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Preoperative mapping of deep pelvic endometriosis (DPE) is crucial as surgery can be complex and the quality of preoperative information is key. Objective: To evaluate the Deep Pelvic Endometriosis Index (dPEI) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) score in a multicenter cohort. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cohort study, the surgical databases of 7 French referral centers were retrospectively queried for women who underwent surgery and preoperative MRI for DPE between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2020. Data were analyzed in October 2022. Intervention: Magnetic resonance imaging scans were reviewed using a dedicated lexicon and classified according to the dPEI score. Main outcomes and measures: Operating time, hospital stay, Clavien-Dindo-graded postoperative complications, and presence of de novo voiding dysfunction. Results: The final cohort consisted of 605 women (mean age, 33.3; 95% CI, 32.7-33.8 years). A mild dPEI score was reported in 61.2% (370) of the women, moderate in 25.8% (156), and severe in 13.1% (79). Central endometriosis was described in 93.2% (564) of the women and lateral endometriosis in 31.2% (189). Lateral endometriosis was more frequent in severe (98.7%) vs moderate (48.7%) disease and in moderate vs mild (6.7%) disease according to the dPEI (P < .001). Median operating time (211 minutes) and hospital stay (6 days) were longer in severe DPE than in moderate DPE (operating time, 150 minutes; hospital stay 4 days; P < .001), and in moderate than in mild DPE (operating time; 110 minutes; hospital stay, 3 days; P < .001). Patients with severe disease were 3.6 times more likely to experience severe complications than patients with mild or moderate disease (odds ratio [OR], 3.6; 95% CI, 1.4-8.9; P = .004). They were also more likely to experience postoperative voiding dysfunction (OR, 3.5; 95% CI, 1.6-7.6; P = .001). Interobserver agreement between senior and junior readers was good (κ = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.65-0.86). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest the ability of the dPEI to predict operating time, hospital stay, postoperative complications, and de novo postoperative voiding dysfunction in a multicenter cohort. The dPEI may help clinicians to better anticipate the extent of DPE and improve clinical management and patient counseling.

Indexed as

EndometriosisAdultCohort StudiesFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID37140921
PMCPMC10160872
OpenAlexW4368359198

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.