ArticleCureus2025
Endometriosis Imaging Diagnosis Beyond Specialized Centers: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Cureus, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveDetermine the accuracy of deep endometriosis (DE) and ovarian endometrioma (OE) diagnosis on pelvic MRI in non-specialized tertiary healthcare, taking surgical diagnosis as the reference test. Additionally, we aimed to evaluate symptom severity and the presence and size of endometriomas as predictors of DE detection during surgery.
methodsThis retrospective cross-sectional study assessed endometriosis patients presenting to a tertiary healthcare center over one year (2018-2019). Pelvic MRI data, obtained within six months of surgery, were extracted from radiologic reports. A symptom severity score (SSS) was used to estimate symptom severity.
resultsPelvic MRI exhibited low sensitivity (75.6%) and high specificity (100%) for DE (n=96). Conversely, OE was diagnosed with high sensitivity (100%) and specificity (93.9%; n=122). Three-way contingency analysis showed that, irrespective of the presence and size of endometrioma, there was a correlation between symptom severity and detection of DE during surgery (OR=6.6, p-value≤0.001; n=287). In a multivariable logistic regression analysis model controlling for endometrioma size, a higher SSS was significantly associated with a higher risk of DE detection during surgery (SSS=1: OR=4.65, p≤0.001; SSS=2: OR=10.66, p≤0.001; n=287). However, when controlling for symptom severity, there was no significant association between the presence and size of endometrioma and surgical detection of DE (endometrioma ≥5 cm: OR=1.57, p>0.05; n=287).
conclusionWhile pelvic MRI effectively identifies DE in this population, caution is advised regarding negative DE MRI results in non-specialized settings. Based on our findings, a high suspicion for DE should be maintained in patients with severe symptoms.
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.