4.7 Article

Validation study of nonsurgical diagnosis of endometriosis

期刊

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
卷 76, 期 5, 页码 929-935

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0015-0282(01)02736-4

关键词

endometriosis; endometriomas; epidemiology; laparoscopy; infertility; dyspareunia; dysmenorrhea; pelvic pain

资金

  1. FIC NIH HHS [F06 TWO2075-01] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIEHS NIH HHS [R01 ES07171] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To determine whether the surgical diagnosis of endometriosis can be predicted using symptoms, signs, and ultrasound findings. Design: Prospective study (study sample); retrospective record review (test sample). Setting: Hospital of Desio (study sample) and Mangiagalli Hospital (test sample), Italy. Patient(s): Ninety women scheduled to undergo laparoscopy or laparotomy (study sample); 120 women who underwent laparoscopy (test sample). Intervention: The study sample group was interviewed before surgery about infertility and dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia, and noncyclic pelvic pain and each member had a pelvic examination and a transvaginal ultrasound. At surgery, endometriosis. was noted. For the test sample, the same information was abstracted from medical records after laparoscopy. Main Outcome Measure(s): The ability of symptoms, signs, and ultrasound to predict endometriosis at surgery. A classification tree was developed with the study sample and evaluated with the test sample. Result(s): Ovarian endometriosis, but not nonovarian endometriosis, could be reliably predicted with noninvasive tools. Ultrasound and examination best predicted ovarian endometriosis, correctly classifying 100% of cases with no false positive diagnoses in the study sample. Similar results were found in the test sample. Conclusion(s): Noninvasive tools may be used to identify women with ovarian, but not nonovarian endometriosis, with excellent agreement with surgical diagnosis. (C) 2001 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据