Validation of self-reported endometriosis

Dereje G. Gete, Annette J. Dobson, Dobson AJ, Sally Mortlock, Mortlock S, Grant W. Montgomery, Richard Hockey, Hockey R, Jenny Doust, Doust J, Mishra GD, Gita D. Mishra
Maturitas · 2025 · vol. 199 , pp. 108642 · doi:10.1016/j.maturitas.2025.108642 · PMID:40540999 · W4411394201
Other OA: hybrid CC0 ⤵ 1 in-corpus citation
🔓 Open OA copy View on OpenAlex View on PubMed View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by gemini-2.5-flash-lite, 2026-06-08 ⓘ

Self-reported endometriosis diagnoses, especially surgical ones, are valid and reliable for epidemiological research, whereas clinically suspected diagnoses should be interpreted with caution.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To assess the validity and reliability of self-reported diagnoses of endometriosis. STUDY DESIGN: The study included 8572 women from two Australian birth cohorts (1989-95 and 1973-78), using data from the Genetic variants, Early Life exposures, and Longitudinal Endometriosis Symptoms Study (GELLES), a sub-study of the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health. Validity was assessed using predictive values, and reliability was evaluated with kappa statistics. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported endometriosis diagnoses from the GELLES question "Has a doctor or healthcare provider ever diagnosed you with endometriosis?" were validated using a longitudinal survey and linked administrative records as the gold standard. RESULTS: The findings from the 1989-95 and 1973-78 cohorts showed good agreement for overall self-reported endometriosis diagnosis, with uncorrected kappa values of 0.67 and 0.70 (or 0.86 and 0.83 after correction for bias and prevalence effects), and positive predictive values of 0.75 and 0.84, respectively. The agreement was notably stronger for self-reported surgical diagnoses, with uncorrected kappa values of 0.87 and 0.79, and positive predictive values of 0.84 and 0.85, respectively. However, the validity of clinically suspected diagnoses was lower due to the higher occurrence of discrepancies in case assignments. CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate that self-reported endometriosis obtained from two questions about diagnoses made by doctors and specified methods (surgical or clinical) are valid and reliable, particularly for surgical diagnoses. Women's responses to these questions can be reliable for identifying endometriosis cases in epidemiological research. Self-reported data of clinically suspected diagnoses (i.e. without surgical confirmation) should be interpreted cautiously.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Condition tags

endometriosis

MeSH descriptors

Endometriosis Endometriosis Endometriosis Endometriosis Endometriosis Endometriosis Endometriosis Endometriosis Endometriosis Endometriosis Endometriosis Endometriosis Endometriosis Endometriosis Endometriosis Endometriosis Endometriosis Endometriosis Endometriosis Endometriosis

Citation neighborhood (2-hop)

Papers in the corpus that this work cites (lower rings, blue) and that cite this one (upper rings, green). Dot size scales with the paper's in-corpus citation count — bigger dot = more influential within the endo/adeno field. Click a dot to open that paper. Outer rings show 2-hop neighbours — papers reached through the immediate citers/citees. [ collapse to 1-hop ]

References (20)

Cited by (4)

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-10-13T06:10:10.580696+00:00
openalex
last seen: 2026-06-10T17:14:06.276822+00:00
pubmed
last seen: 2026-10-13T06:06:43.836766+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK