Co-occurrence of endometriosis and uterine fibroids: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Endometriosis and uterine fibroids are estrogen-dependent gynecological disorders with an increasing burden to women's health worldwide. Despite overlapping symptoms and long-term consequences, the magnitude of their co-occurrence remains unclear. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Scopus up to July 21st, 2025, for studies reporting data on fibroids occurrence in patients with and without endometriosis. Effect estimates (adjusted or, if unavailable, crude) were pooled using random-effects models. Age and body mass index (BMI) were explored in uni- and multivariate meta-regressions. Subgroup analyses considered study design, data source, geographic location, parity, age and study quality. Sensitivity analysis included only asymptomatic controls without endometriosis. Study quality and certainty of evidence were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation guidelines, respectively. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42024614711). Findings: 4351 articles were identified, of which 23 met eligibility criteria, including 3,109,231 patients (118,716 with endometriosis and 2,990,515 controls). Endometriosis was associated with higher odds of fibroids (pooled OR 2.91; 95% CI, 1.78-4.75). BMI influenced estimates (p < 0.01). Between-group differences in data source (p < 0.01) and study quality (p = 0.03) were observed. Parity showed a trend effect: OR 1.56 (95% CI: 0.53-4.59) for studies with >50% nulliparous women, 4.52 (95% CI: 2.53-8.10) for those with >50% multiparous, 5.23 (95% CI, 2.09-13.04) for studies with >95% multiparous women. In sensitivity analysis with only asymptomatic controls (n = 3,103,146), the OR increased to 7.01 (95% CI: 4.72-10.41). Interpretation: This first meta-analysis on the co-occurrence of endometriosis and fibroids shows that women with endometriosis have a three-to tenfold higher odds of fibroids compared with controls. Clinical awareness of this association is crucial to optimize both patient management and short- and long-term women's health outcomes. Funding: This study was funded by the Italian Ministry of Health-Current research IRCCS.
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 | 0.013 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.038 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".