Diagnosis of Endometriosis: Biomarkers

Beata Seeber, Kurt T. Barnhart
In: Endometriosis · 2011 · pp. 309–323 · doi:10.1002/9781444398519.ch30 · W1524263308
other OA: closed CC0 ⤵ 3 in-corpus citations
View on OpenAlex View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by claude@2026-06, 2026-06-08 ⓘ

This review examines promising biomarkers for non-invasive endometriosis diagnosis, highlighting the need for improved study designs and validation to overcome current limitations.

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

Abstract

There is a great need for biomarkers that can serve as surrogates for important clinical endpoints such as endometriosis. The pursuit of a marker has been hampered by disparate study designs, small samples, and controversy regarding desired optimization sensitivity or specificity. Many markers have been proposed but few have been validated. Despite the lack of a concerted effort for development, there are a number of promising markers, which are reviewed in this chapter. It is likely that a discovery-driven approach and investigation into combination of markers will advance the goal of development of a non-invasive diagnostic or prognostic test.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Condition tags

endometriosis

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 (78)

Cited by (3)

Source provenance

openalex
last seen: 2026-06-10T17:14:06.276822+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK