ArticleFacts, views & vision in ObGyn2025
Enhancing clinical practice: the Endoscore app for automated surgical data capture and endometriosis scoring.
Article in Facts, views & vision in ObGyn, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: There is a growing unmet need to digitalise the management of clinical data in medicine. Web-based scoring applications for endometriosis align with this trend. Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate a web-based application that automatically calculates endometriosis staging scores [revised American Society for Reproductive Medicine classification (r-ASRM), the revised Enzian classification (#Enzian), Endometriosis Fertility Index (EFI)] and compare it to manual scoring in a proof-of-concept study. Methods: 20 endometriosis cases operated on in 2022 were retrospectively selected. Six experienced gynaecologists were randomly allocated to either the conventional paper-based method or the digital application for staging of disease. Main Outcome Measures: Completion time, score consistency among examiners and methods, and user satisfaction were recorded using a Likert scale and a subjective mental effort questionnaire (SMEQ). Results: In comparison to the paper-based method, the web-based tool reduced scoring time by 25.1 seconds (128.0 vs. 153.1, Conclusions: The application facilitates sequential data entry for users and automatically calculates r-ASRM, #Enzian, and EFI scores. It decreases scoring duration, strongly aligns with the paper-based method, and enhances user satisfaction. What is New?: This tool can potentially improve clinical efficiency, accuracy, and consistency in the staging of endometriosis.
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.