ArticleBMJ open2025
Predicting pain reduction following laparoscopic surgery for endometriosis: a retrospective cohort study using UK national and research databases.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo develop and validate models to predict which endometriosis patients are likely to experience pain reduction following therapeutic laparoscopy using intraoperative findings and patient characteristics.
designA retrospective secondary data analysis with patient workshops.
settingAnalysis of a UK nationwide, specialist centre, surgical database (British Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy, BSGE) (2013-2019, N=9171) and two research databases, MEDAL (2011-2013, N=667) and LUNA (1998-2005, N=592) for exploratory analyses and external validation.
participantsDatabase patients had laparoscopically confirmed (BSGE) or clinically suspected endometriosis (MEDAL, LUNA) and ranged from 16 to 65 years. Patient workshops included UK-wide endometriosis patients from the community, secondary care doctors and endometriosis nurses. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Following model development and internal validation, primary outcome measures included model performance statistics for discrimination (C-statistic) and calibration (calibration slope and calibration-in-the-large) for pain-improvement models for each of the five clinically meaningful pain domains. Secondary outcome measures included performance statistics for externally validated models and net benefit (using decision curve analysis).
resultsFollowing internal validation for dyspareunia (pain during sexual intercourse), non-cyclical pelvic pain (NPP), dyschezia (painful defecation) and quality of life our models showed good discrimination ability with C-statistics of 0.768, 0.750, 0.808 and 0.792, respectively. Significant increases in odds of pain relief were associated with trying to conceive for less than 18 months, any treated endometriosis of the ovary or uterosacral ligament or hysterectomy at the time of laparoscopy. For those models for which sufficient data were available to do external validation, dyspareunia and NPP showed good ability to predict pain reduction following surgery with C-statistics of 0.759 and 0.741, respectively, but after external validation only the model for dyspareunia good discriminatory ability (C-statistic=0.718). Despite this, decision curve analysis indicated some net benefit for all externally validated models.
conclusionsClinical prediction models can help identify women who will experience pain reduction after therapeutic laparoscopy, but more work is required to externally validate the current models. Removal of ovarian and utero-sacral ligament endometriosis appears to convey pain relief after surgery, whereas removal of superficial peritoneal endometriosis does not.
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.