Interpreting the real-time dynamic 'sliding sign' and predicting pouch of Douglas obliteration: an interobserver, intraobserver, diagnostic-accuracy and learning-curve study

Menakaya U, U. Menakaya, Infante F, Fernando Infante del Rosal, F Infante, Chuan Lü, C Lu, C. Phua, Phua C, A. Model, Model A, Messyne F, F. Messyne, M. Brainwood, Brainwood M, S. Reid, Shelley Reid, G. Condous, Condous G
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology · 2015 · vol. 48(1) , pp. 113–120 · doi:10.1002/uog.15661 · PMID:26214843 · W2488769292
Diagnostic accuracy OA: bronze CC0 ⤵ 33 in-corpus citations
🔓 Open OA copy View on OpenAlex View on PubMed View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by gemini-2.5-flash-lite, 2026-06-07 ⓘ

This study found moderate agreement in interpreting the sliding sign and variable accuracy in predicting pouch of Douglas obliteration, with performance improving after a minimum number of prior gynecological ultrasound scans.

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

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine inter- and intraobserver agreement, diagnostic accuracy and the learning curve required for interpreting the 'sliding sign' and predicting pouch of Douglas (POD) obliteration. METHODS: This was an inter-/intraobserver, diagnostic-accuracy and learning-curve study involving six observers with different medical backgrounds, clinical skill sets and prior gynecological ultrasound experience: five non-specialist observers who had performed 0-750 previous gynecological scans and an expert sonologist who had performed  > 15 000. Following a formal theoretical and practical training session, they each viewed 64 offline transvaginal ultrasound (TVS) 'sliding-sign' videos from two anatomical locations (retrocervix and posterior uterine fundus (PUF)) in 32 women presenting with chronic pelvic pain, interpreting the videos as positive or negative for sliding sign and predicting, on that basis, the POD status. For intraobserver agreement analysis they re-analyzed the same video sets, in a different order, at least 7 days later. The expert sonologist was the reference standard for interpreting the sliding sign and the gold standard, laparoscopy, was used for the POD analysis. Learning-curve cumulative summation (LC-CUSUM) tests were conducted to assess if observer performance reached acceptable levels, using LC-CUSUM score < -2.45 as a cut-off. RESULTS: With respect to interpretation of the sliding sign, the overall multiple-rater agreement was moderate (Fleiss' kappa, K = 0.499). Observers were more consistent in their interpretation of the second compared with the first observation set (K = 0.547 vs 0.453) and for the retrocervical compared with the PUF region (K = 0.556 vs 0.346). Regarding prediction of POD status, the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values for individual observers ranged from 65.4 to 96.2%, 80.0 to 100%, 64.7 to 100%, 50.0 to 100% and 94.7 to 100%, respectively. Using LC-CUSUM score < -2.45, the observer with experience of 200 previous gynecological scans reached acceptable levels for predicting POD obliteration and interpreting the sliding sign at each region (retrocervix and PUF) at 39, 54 and 28 videos and the observer with experience of 750 scans at 56, 53 and 53 videos. CONCLUSIONS: Performance of a minimum number of gynecological ultrasound examinations is necessary for interpreting offline videos of the real-time dynamic sliding sign and predicting POD obliteration. Non-specialist observers with prior experience of 200 or more gynecological scans were more consistent in interpreting the sliding sign at the retrocervix vs PUF. Copyright © 2015 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Condition tags

endometriosischronic_pelvic_pain

MeSH descriptors

Douglas' Pouch Endometriosis Adult Adult Douglas' Pouch Douglas' Pouch Endometriosis Endometriosis Female Female Humans Humans Learning Curve Learning Curve Observer Variation Observer Variation Reproducibility of Results Reproducibility of Results Sensitivity and Specificity Sensitivity and Specificity

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 (39)

Cited by (34)

Source provenance

crossref
last seen: 2026-05-10T19:04:17.554300+00:00
europepmc
last seen: 2026-10-11T09:27:45.537177+00:00
openalex
last seen: 2026-05-10T10:43:44.356231+00:00
pubmed
last seen: 2026-10-08T21:15:59.322652+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK