4.5 Article

Prevalence of newly diagnosed endometriosis in women attending the general practitioner

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGY & OBSTETRICS
Volume 110, Issue 3, Pages 203-207

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2010.03.039

Keywords

Diagnosis; Endometriosis; Epidemiology; General practitioner; Prevalence

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To investigate the prevalence of newly diagnosed endometriosis in premenopausal women who requested a consultation with their general practitioner because of non-gynecological problems. Method: Participants in the study were invited to complete a questionnaire investigating the presence of pain symptoms and infertility. On the basis of the characteristics of these symptoms, some patients underwent gynecological examination and transvaginal ultrasound. Radiological examinations were performed when bowel or bladder endometriosis were suspected. Results: A total of 1291 women without a previous diagnosis of endometriosis were included in the study. On the basis of the symptoms, 108 women were referred to a gynecologist. After gynecological examination and transvaginal ultrasound, endometriosis was suspected in 51 women (47.2%). The diagnosis of endometriosis was confirmed by radiological investigations and/or surgery in 46 patients; the diagnosis of endometriosis was presumed in 2 other women but it was not confirmed by radiological investigations and/or surgery. The prevalence of endometriosis diagnosed by magnetic resonance imaging and/or surgery was 3.6% (46/1291). Conclusion: The prevalence of newly diagnosed symptomatic endometriosis in this study was at least 3.6%. A simple evaluation of symptoms (pain and infertility) that can be performed by a general practitioner facilitates the diagnosis of endometriosis. (C) 2010 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available