Reproducibility of the revised American Fertility Society classification of endometriosis using laparoscopy or laparotomy

S Y Lin, Lin SY, S.‐Y Lin, R K Lee, Lee RK, Robert Kuo‐Kuang Lee, Yuh‐Ming Hwu, Y M Hwu, Hwu YM, Lin MH, M H Lin, Meng‐Hung Lin
International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics · 1998 · vol. 60(3) , pp. 265–269 · doi:10.1016/s0020-7292(97)00247-6 · PMID:9544711 · W2005979045
Other OA: closed CC0 ⤵ 14 in-corpus citations
View on OpenAlex View on PubMed View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by gemini-2.5-flash-lite, 2026-06-08 ⓘ

This study found considerable variability between laparoscopic and laparotomy scoring methods for endometriosis using the revised AFS classification, altering staging in over a third of patients.

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

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the discrepancy between laparoscopic and laparotomic scoring methods using the revised American Fertility Society (AFS) classification of endometriosis. METHOD: In this prospective study, 84 patients with endometriosis were scored twice (laparoscopically and laparotomically) by the same subspecialty-certified reproductive endocrinologist. The magnitude of inter-method variability was reported quantitatively by the S.D. of the differences in scores between the pairs. The differences in the mean endometriosis scores between the two methods were assessed by the paired Student's t-test. P < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant. Discrepancy between the two methods in the staging of endometriosis patients was presented by kappa measure of agreement. RESULT: There was considerable variability in the scores between the two scoring methods by the same observer. Among individual components of the scoring system, the greatest variability occurred in the ovarian endometriosis and cul-de-sac obliteration subscores, with the least variability observed for peritoneum endometriosis. The inter-method variation in score was sufficient to alter the endometriosis staging in 34.5% of patients, including a difference of two stages in 3.6% of patients. The kappa coefficient was 0.49, indicating fair-to-good agreement between the two scoring methods. CONCLUSION: Inter-method variability between laparoscopic and laparotomic scoring methods was high for ovarian endometriosis subscore using the revised AFS classification of endometriosis. Agreement in endometriosis staging between the two methods was fair to good.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Condition tags

endometriosis

MeSH descriptors

Endometriosis Laparoscopy Laparoscopy Ovarian Diseases Endometriosis Endometriosis Female Female Humans Humans Laparotomy Laparotomy Ovarian Diseases Ovarian Diseases Prospective Studies Prospective Studies Reproducibility of Results Reproducibility of Results

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 (10)

Cited by (14)

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-10-15T06:08:49.021275+00:00
openalex
last seen: 2026-06-10T17:14:06.276822+00:00
pubmed
last seen: 2026-10-08T22:00:35.617750+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-10-15T06:24:24.424788+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK