ArticleBMC women's health2025
Screening for endometriosis: A scoping review of screening measures that could support early diagnosis.
Article in BMC women's health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Shortening the Endometriosis Diagnostic Pathway: A Narrative Review and Research Agenda.International journal of women's health · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndometriosis is prevalent in approximately 6-10% of all women of reproductive age and is associated with pelvic pain, heavy menstrual bleeding, infertility, and pain during intercourse. Despite reporting symptoms, women wait around 11 years before receiving a diagnosis, further interfering with their mental and physical health. Patient reported screening measures can promote faster diagnosis, however their measurement quality remains unknown. Our objective was to identify and assess the measurement properties of endometriosis screening tools in a clinical setting.
methodsWe searched Medline, Embase, and CINAHL from January 2010 until February 15th, 2024, as well as the reference list of all included studies. Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility at all stages of the review. Study quality was assessed with a modified COSMIN framework and stoplight system in which the measurement properties of each Patient Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) were ranked and scored as positive (green), negative (red), or unknown (yellow).
resultsOf the 6082 studies that were collected, 24 were assessed for eligibility and eleven PROMs met our inclusion criteria and had their data extracted. A majority of the included studies assessed very few measurement properties (e.g., measurement error, structural validity, construct validity or responsiveness, etc…) of the PROM, leaving their quality unknown. The ENDOPAIN-4D received a positive rating in six out of ten measurement properties, ranking highest among the included studies. A Machine Learning Algorithm (MLA) developed by Bendifallah et al. (2022) also received good content and criterion validity, however required both patient report and clinical indicators.
conclusionOf the included PROMs, the ENDOPAIN-4D was found the be the highest quality and could be adopted for a primary care setting. While the MLA could be used in a tertiary or specialist care setting reliance on more advanced data. However, like most studies included, the scope of its application is limited due to the potential homogeneity of ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status of the sample.
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.