ArticleEuropean journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X2025
Evaluation of clinical usability and reproducibility of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine Müllerian Anomalies Classification.
Article in European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X, 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
Objective: To study the usability, reproducibility and practicality of the revised American Society for Reproductive Medicine Müllerian Anomalies Classification (ASRM MAC2021) compared to the formerly used American Fertility Society (AFS) classification. The main focus of this paper is to present clinicians' assessment when using these classification systems and to explore possible benefits and disadvantages of the transformation of the AFS into the more recently published ASRM classification. To incorporate all commonly used classification systems, all cases were additionally classified using the ESHRE/ESGE and the VCUAM classification. Methods: An observational study using a questionnaire and opinion survey was conducted with the goal of comparing clinicians' subjective usability and reproducibility of the AFS classification with the newly presented ASRM MAC2021 classification. Cases of female genital malformations encompassed a wide range of various anomalies, including vaginal, cervical and adnexal conditions and associated malformations. Results: The study investigators rated the ASRM MAC2021 classification better in relation to usability and reproducibility compared to the AFS classification. It significantly improved diagnostic precision for vaginal and cervical anomalies and expanded recognition of adnexal malformations. However, challenges remain in addressing associated malformations. Clinicians ranked the ASRM MAC2021 higher than the AFS classification. However, investigators rated the ESHRE/ESGE and VCUAM classifications better in the overall assessment of female genital malformations. Conclusion: The ASRM MAC2021 classification offers substantial improvements in diagnosing and managing female genital malformations, addressing limitations of the AFS system. With better usability and subjective reproducibility, further refinements are needed to fully address complex associated anomalies - emphasizing the importance of evolving classification systems.
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.