MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Psychological stress levels in women with endometriosis: systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

2020· review· en· W2996104446 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Diogo L Brasil, Erik Montagna, Camila Martins Trevisan, Valentina Lucia La Rosa, Antonio Simone Laganà, Caio Parente Barbosa, Bianca Bianco, Victor Zaia

Bibliographic record

VenueMinerva Medica · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometriosis Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEndometriosisMeta-analysisAnxietyPelvic painInfertilityClinical psychologyInternal medicinePhysical therapyGynecologyObstetricsPsychiatrySurgeryPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Endometriosis is defined as the presence of endometrial-like tissue outside the uterus, associated with chronic and inflammatory reaction. Symptoms range from dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia, chronic pelvic pain, unexplained infertility to asymptomatic. The patients' quality of life is affected by anxiety, depression and stress. We aimed to verify the prevalence and levels of psychological stress among women with endometriosis. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The systematic review followed the PRISMA statement and the MOOSE guideline. Databases searched were MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychNET and SciELO. The risk of bias was assessed with a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The meta-analysis of proportions used inverse variance method for pooling and random-effects model. For the stress levels we used the restricted maximum likelihood estimator for summary effects. Heterogeneity was assessed through I2 and Q statistics. Publication bias was assessed through funnel plots. Meta-regression adopted a mixed-effects model, considering patient age, endometriosis staging, stress assessment tool and data collection as categorical moderators. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We included 15 studies encompassing 4,619 women with endometriosis. The overall prevalence of mild/high stress was 68% (95%CI:57%-79%), I2=98% and τ2=0.0228. The mean level of stress was 41.78% (95%CI =34.05%-49.51%), I2=99.9% and τ2=83.35. Meta-regression showed relationship with endometriosis staging. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first meta-analysis exploring the association between endometriosis and psychological stress. The interdisciplinary management of the disease should expand the mental health support in this patient care, beyond pain management. Finally, the attitude of the medical team acknowledging the patients' psychological stress may positively affect their treatment.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Meta-analysislow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Meta-analysishigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.529
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.453
GPT teacher head0.487
Teacher spread0.035 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations59
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMinerva MedicaSame topicEndometriosis Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207