ArticlePloS one2024
Comparison of clinical practice guidelines methods to reach diagnostic test recommendations regarding diagnostic laparoscopy for endometriosis: A scoping review.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Identification and Validation of a Four-Gene Signature as a Novel Potential Diagnostic Biomarker Panel for Endometriosis: Causal and Mechanistic Insights from Mendelian Randomization and Bioinformatics.International journal of women's health · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAlthough Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) highlight that laparoscopy is often used in the treatment of endometriosis, its diagnostic usefulness is not fully defined. Our objective was to evaluate the quality of CPGs for endometriosis that address the use of diagnostic laparoscopy in reproductive age women, and describe the recommendations and methods used to assess diagnostic test questions.
methodsA comprehensive search of 5 databases (Trip Database, MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and EMABSE) and websites of guideline development organizations and compilers was conducted from 2017 to 2023. A descriptive analysis of the recommendations was performed and the quality of the guidelines was assessed using the AGREE-II instrument.
resultsFour CPGs were included in the review, all exhibiting adequate methodological quality (scores ranging from 66.7% to 91.0%). Regarding the use of laparoscopy for endometriosis diagnosis, discrepancies in recommendations were observed. Two guidelines advised against it, one recommended either laparoscopy or medical empirical treatment, and one favored its use. GRADE guidance was employed for evidence assessment, but only one guideline transparently reported the certainty of evidence and the evidence-to-decision framework process.
conclusionsVariability in recommendations among different CPGs were found. To keep in mind, discrepancies arise from differing prioritizations of the assessment of clinical impact in patient important outcomes and methodological approaches. This underscores the need for more standardized and transparent guideline development processes, particularly in addressing the clinical utility of diagnostic tests.
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.