Screening for endometriosis: A scoping review of screening measures that could support early diagnosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Endometriosis is prevalent in approximately 6-10% of all women of reproductive age and is associated with pelvic pain, heavy menstrual bleeding, infertility, and pain during intercourse. Despite reporting symptoms, women wait around 11 years before receiving a diagnosis, further interfering with their mental and physical health. Patient reported screening measures can promote faster diagnosis, however their measurement quality remains unknown. Our objective was to identify and assess the measurement properties of endometriosis screening tools in a clinical setting. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, and CINAHL from January 2010 until February 15th, 2024, as well as the reference list of all included studies. Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility at all stages of the review. Study quality was assessed with a modified COSMIN framework and stoplight system in which the measurement properties of each Patient Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) were ranked and scored as positive (green), negative (red), or unknown (yellow). RESULTS: Of the 6082 studies that were collected, 24 were assessed for eligibility and eleven PROMs met our inclusion criteria and had their data extracted. A majority of the included studies assessed very few measurement properties (e.g., measurement error, structural validity, construct validity or responsiveness, etc…) of the PROM, leaving their quality unknown. The ENDOPAIN-4D received a positive rating in six out of ten measurement properties, ranking highest among the included studies. A Machine Learning Algorithm (MLA) developed by Bendifallah et al. (2022) also received good content and criterion validity, however required both patient report and clinical indicators. CONCLUSION: Of the included PROMs, the ENDOPAIN-4D was found the be the highest quality and could be adopted for a primary care setting. While the MLA could be used in a tertiary or specialist care setting reliance on more advanced data. However, like most studies included, the scope of its application is limited due to the potential homogeneity of ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status of the sample.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.035 | 0.148 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.030 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".