4.6 Article

Can symptomatology help in the diagnosis of endometriosis? Findings from a national case-control study - Part 1

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2008.01878.x

关键词

diagnosis; endometriosis; General Practice Research Database; prevalence; symptoms

资金

  1. BUPA Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To determine the value of patient-reported symptoms in diagnosing endometriosis. Design A national case-control study. Setting Data from the UK General Practice Research Database for years 1992-2001. Sample A total of 5540 women aged 15-55 years, diagnosed with endometriosis, each matched to four controls without endometriosis. Methods Data were analysed to determine whether specific symptoms were highly indicative of endometriosis. Odds ratios for these symptoms were derived by conditional logistic regression analysis. Main outcome measures Symptoms associated with endometriosis. Results The prevalence of diagnosed endometriosis was 1.5%. A greater proportion of women with endometriosis had abdominopelvic pain, dysmenorrhoea or menorrhagia (73%) compared with controls (20%). Compared with controls, women with endometriosis had increased risks of abdominopelvic pain (OR 5.2 [95% CI: 4.7-5.7]), dysmenorrhoea (OR 8.1 [95% CI: 7.2-9.3]), menorrhagia (OR 4.0 [95% CI: 3.5-4.5]), subfertility (OR 8.2 [95% CI: 6.9-9.9]), dyspareunia and/or postcoital bleeding (OR 6.8 [95% CI: 5.7-8.2]), and ovarian cysts (OR 7.3 [95% CI: 5.7-9.4]), and of being diagnosed with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) (OR 1.6 [95% CI: 1.3-1.8]) or pelvic inflammatory disease (OR 3.0 [95% CI: 2.5-3.6]). Women with endometriosis were also found to consult the doctor more frequently than the controls and were twice as likely to have time off work. Conclusions Specific symptoms and frequent medical consultation are associated with endometriosis and appear useful in the diagnosis. Endometriosis may coexist with or be misdiagnosed as pelvic inflammatory disease or IBS.

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

4.6
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