MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4407684980 · doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2025.02.009

Endometriosis Clinical and Surgical Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Comparison of Virtual-Only Care to Virtual and In-Person Care Combined

2025· article· en· W4407684980 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Heather Noga, Caroline E. Lee, Mohamed A. Bedaiwy, Christina Williams, Catherine Allaire, Paul J. Yong

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsBritish Columbia Centre of Excellence for Women's HealthWomen's Health Research InstituteUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of British ColumbiaSociety for the Study of ReproductionCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchFaculty of Medicine, University of British ColumbiaCanada Research ChairsWomen and Children's Health Research InstituteMichael Smith Health Research BCPfizer
KeywordsMedicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Pandemic2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)EndometriosisMedical emergencyIntensive care medicineVirologyGynecologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Endometriosis is a chronic and inflammatory condition that affects approximately 10% of the reproductive-age population. During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a shift towards virtual care for endometriosis. Our aim was to evaluate the diagnostic and treatment outcomes of virtual-only care, compared to those who had both virtual and in-person visits. DESIGN: Retrospective descriptive analysis of registry data. SETTING: This study was conducted in British Columbia, Canada, at a tertiary referral center for endometriosis and pelvic pain. PATIENTS: In this cohort (n = 389), we examined patients who received an initial virtual assessment followed by virtual care alone (Virtual Only group, n = 203) and those who had an initial virtual assessment followed by an in-person physical exam (Physical Exam group, n = 186). INTERVENTIONS: Virtual care at the center during the COVID-19 pandemic. MAIN RESULTS: The Physical Exam group was more likely to have surgery compared to the Virtual Only group (45.7% vs. 16%, p <.001). At the time of surgery, the groups did not differ based on type of surgery (e.g., excision of endometriosis and/or hysterectomy), endometriosis anatomic findings (e.g., stage and anatomic subtype), surgical complexity or surgical complications. At baseline, the two groups did not differ in their pain, mental health or quality of life scores. At 1-year follow-up, the two groups did not differ in these outcome measures. CONCLUSION: There was a lower rate of surgery, but no differences in surgical findings or complications, nor in 1-year outcomes, after virtual only care for endometriosis compared to patients that had a virtual visit and then underwent a physical exam. These results support a hybrid model, where a virtual visit is the first contact and serves as a triage tool to determine whether a patient is appropriate for virtual only care or would benefit from a physical exam. Future research could incorporate population-based administrative data or qualitative approaches to understanding patient experiences and physician perspectives on virtual care for the treatment of endometriosis.

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

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.353 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology→Same topicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation→French-language works237,207→