ReviewInternational journal of women's health2026
Adenomyosis and Endometrial Polyps: A Systematic Review of Coexistence Patterns and Diagnostic Contexts.
Review in International journal of women's health, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Adenomyosis (AM) and endometrial polyps (EPs) are frequently identified in women evaluated for abnormal uterine bleeding, pelvic pain, infertility, and peri- or postmenopausal symptoms. However, coexistence estimates arise from heterogeneous clinical and diagnostic pathways. We synthesized bidirectional AM-EP coexistence and examined how source population and ascertainment influenced reported prevalence. Patients and Methods: This PROSPERO-registered systematic review (CRD420261304541) followed PRISMA 2020. PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Scopus were searched from the earliest date available in each database to July 14, 2026. Studies reporting either direction of AM-EP prevalence were included. Methodological quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute prevalence checklist. Given clinically heterogeneous populations, denominators, and diagnostic pathways, study-specific estimates were synthesized narratively without pooling. Results: Sixteen observational studies involving 14,917 women were included. EP prevalence among women with AM ranged from 4.3% to 34.6% across 12 studies. AM prevalence among women with EPs ranged from 3.9% to 91.9% across 11 studies and showed substantially greater dispersion. Among seven studies reporting both directions, six yielded higher estimates for AM among women with EPs than for EP among women with AM. In hysteroscopic polypectomy cohorts, AM prevalence was 3.9-14.5%, while hysterectomy-based estimates were more variable and the two highest values, 55.9% and 91.9%, arose from selected surgical or pathology-enriched populations. This asymmetry was consistent with denominator structure, surgical selection, and intensity of myometrial assessment. Conclusion: AM and EPs are repeatedly identified together across diverse gynecological pathways, but the observed likelihood of identifying the alternative lesion is strongly pathway-dependent. Identification of one lesion should not end diagnostic consideration when symptoms, imaging findings, infertility, or treatment response remain incompletely explained. Current evidence supports targeted consideration of the alternative lesion, with further evaluation guided by symptoms and clinical pathway, rather than universal dual-pathology screening.
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.