ArticleCommunications medicine2026
Global inequities and fragmentation in guidelines for endometriosis: a scoping review.
Article in Communications medicine, 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
29 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite the availability of endometriosis care guidelines from multiple governmental and professional organisations, their global applicability and recommendations have been insufficiently examined. This scoping review examines endometriosis guidelines worldwide, evaluating their availability, target audiences and populations, methodologies, and clinical recommendations, building on a previous review of region-specific endometriosis care guidance.
methodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus from inception through October 2025 without language, publication date, or geographic location restrictions. Additional grey literature searches were conducted through March 2026. Eligible guidelines addressed individuals with suspected or confirmed endometriosis of any age, including adolescent-specific guidance and recommendations incorporating adenomyosis.
resultsA total of 47 guidelines were included, comprising 28 English-language and 19 non-English-language guidelines from multiple regions. The findings reveal marked regional inequities: most guidelines originate from high-income settings, particularly in Europe (15/47, 32%), with substantial gaps in Africa (2%) and the Eastern Mediterranean (4%). Variation in inclusivity and methodological rigour was observed, including underrepresentation of adolescents (77%), individuals with lived experience (30%), and gender-diverse people (19%), as well as inconsistent approaches to grading evidence. There was also limited consideration of primary care physicians (49%), who play a key role in early diagnosis and management. Gaps in alignment across guidelines on key diagnostic and therapeutic pathways include recommendations on histological confirmation, biomarker use, aromatase inhibitors, repeat surgery, fertility care, non-medical interventions, and self-care interventions.
conclusionsThese findings highlight the need for a global normative guideline, greater standardisation in guideline development methods, context-specific guidance that incorporates the needs and rights of end-users, and coordinated efforts to strengthen equitable, evidence-based care.
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.