Tubal pelvic damage: Prediction and prognosis

Valentine Akande
In: Human Fertility · 2002 · vol. 5(sup1) , pp. S15–S20 · doi:10.1080/1464727022000199861 · PMID:11897910 · W2168534199
review OA: closed CC0 ⤵ 3 in-corpus citations
View on OpenAlex View on PubMed View at publisher

Abstract

Tubal pelvic damage is a common cause of infertility, and laparoscopy is the accepted gold standard for its diagnosis. However, laparoscopy is both costly and invasive. Chlamydia is now recognized as the most common cause of tubal pelvic damage. In contrast to laparoscopy, evidence of past chlamydial infection using serology is readily available, and the test is simple and quick to perform. As such, serology can be used as a screening test in infertile women. It is accepted that screening tests may have higher margins of error and may be less accurate than diagnostic tests. Screening is most valuable when detecting a disease for which the treatment is more effective when undertaken at the earliest opportunity. Because there are justified constraints to the indiscriminate use of laparoscopy, there is a need to minimize the number of patients who do not have disease (false positives) who are subjected to this diagnostic investigation. An appropriate Chlamydia antibody titre that would distinguish women at risk of tubal pelvic damage should be determined using diagnostic test analysis and clinical judgement. Identification by serology of women who are likely to have damage would enable these women to undergo a diagnostic test such as laparoscopy sooner, allowing treatment to be provided earlier. However, the severity of tubal pelvic damage varies, and the need to distinguish women with a favourable or unfavourable prognosis after treatment using a simple classification system is discussed.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Condition tags

infertility

Citation neighborhood

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. [ expand to 2 hops ] — adds papers reached through this work's immediate citers/citees. Heavier; up to 60 extra dots.

References (87)

Cited by (3)

Source provenance

openalex
last seen: 2026-06-04T00:00:01.174412+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-06-04T02:00:05.705006+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK