Validity of self-reported endometriosis: a comparison across four cohorts

A L Shafrir, Amy L. Shafrir, L A Wise, Lauren A. Wise, Julie R. Palmer, J R Palmer, Z O Shuaib, Laura Katuska, L M Katuska, P Vinayak, Marina Kvaskoff, M Kvaskoff, Kathryn L. Terry, K L Terry, S A Missmer, Stacey A. Missmer
Human Reproduction · 2021 · vol. 36(5) , pp. 1268–1278 · doi:10.1093/humrep/deab012 · PMID:33595055 · W3132440348
article OA: bronze CC0 ⤵ 48 in-corpus citations
📄 Open PDF View on OpenAlex View on PubMed View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by claude@2026-06, 2026-06-07 ⓘ

Women self-report endometriosis diagnoses with over 70% confirmation from medical records, particularly high when laparoscopically confirmed.

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

Abstract

STUDY QUESTION: How accurately do women report a diagnosis of endometriosis on self-administered questionnaires? SUMMARY ANSWER: Based on the analysis of four international cohorts, women self-report endometriosis fairly accurately with a > 70% confirmation for clinical and surgical records. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The study of complex diseases requires large, diverse population-based samples, and endometriosis is no exception. Due to the difficulty of obtaining medical records for a condition that may have been diagnosed years earlier and for which there is no standardized documentation, reliance on self-report is necessary. Only a few studies have assessed the validity of self-reported endometriosis compared with medical records, with the observed confirmation ranging from 32% to 89%. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We compared questionnaire-reported endometriosis with medical record notation among participants from the Black Women's Health Study (BWHS; 1995-2013), Etude Epidémiologique auprès de femmes de la Mutuelle Générale de l'Education Nationale (E3N; 1990-2006), Growing Up Today Study (GUTS; 2005-2016), and Nurses' Health Study II (NHSII; 1989-1993 first wave, 1995-2007 second wave). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Participants who had reported endometriosis on self-administered questionnaires gave permission to procure and review their clinical, surgical, and pathology medical records, yielding records for 827 women: 225 (BWHS), 168 (E3N), 85 (GUTS), 132 (NHSII first wave), and 217 (NHSII second wave). We abstracted diagnosis confirmation as well as American Fertility Society (AFS) or revised American Society of Reproductive Medicine (rASRM) stage and visualized macro-presentation (e.g. superficial peritoneal, deep endometriosis, endometrioma). For each cohort, we calculated clinical reference to endometriosis, and surgical- and pathologic-confirmation proportions. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Confirmation was high-84% overall when combining clinical, surgical, and pathology records (ranging from 72% for BWHS to 95% for GUTS), suggesting that women accurately report if they are told by a physician that they have endometriosis. Among women with self-reported laparoscopic confirmation of their endometriosis diagnosis, confirmation of medical records was extremely high (97% overall, ranging from 95% for NHSII second wave to 100% for NHSII first wave). Importantly, only 42% of medical records included pathology reports, among which histologic confirmation ranged from 76% (GUTS) to 100% (NHSII first wave). Documentation of visualized endometriosis presentation was often absent, and details recorded were inconsistent. AFS or rASRM stage was documented in 44% of NHSII first wave, 13% of NHSII second wave, and 24% of GUTS surgical records. The presence/absence of deep endometriosis was rarely noted in the medical records. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Medical record abstraction was conducted separately by cohort-specific investigators, potentially introducing misclassification due to variation in abstraction protocols and interpretation. Additionally, information on the presence/absence of AFS/rASRM stage, deep endometriosis, and histologic findings were not available for all four cohort studies. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Variation in access to care and differences in disease phenotypes and risk factor distributions among patients with endometriosis necessitates the use of large, diverse population samples to subdivide patients for risk factor, treatment response and discovery of long-term outcomes. Women self-report endometriosis with reasonable accuracy (>70%) and with exceptional accuracy when women are restricted to those who report that their endometriosis had been confirmed by laparoscopic surgery (>94%). Thus, relying on self-reported endometriosis in order to use larger sample sizes of patients with endometriosis appears to be valid, particularly when self-report of laparoscopic confirmation is used as the case definition. However, the paucity of data on histologic findings, AFS/rASRM stage, and endometriosis phenotypic characteristics suggests that a universal requirement for harmonized clinical and surgical data documentation is needed if we hope to obtain the relevant details for subgrouping patients with endometriosis. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This project was supported by Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Development grants HD48544, HD52473, HD57210, and HD94842, National Cancer Institute grants CA50385, R01CA058420, UM1CA164974, and U01CA176726, and National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute grant U01HL154386. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. AS, SM, and KT were additionally supported by the J. Willard and Alice S. Marriott Foundation. MK was supported by a Marie Curie International Outgoing Fellowship within the 7th European Community Framework Programme (#PIOF-GA-2011-302078) and is grateful to the Philippe Foundation and the Bettencourt-Schueller Foundation for their financial support. Funders had no role in the study design, conduct of the study or data analysis, writing of the report, or decision to submit the article for publication. LA Wise has served as a fibroid consultant for AbbVie, Inc for the last three years and has received in-kind donations (e.g. home pregnancy tests) from Swiss Precision Diagnostics, Sandstone Diagnostics, Kindara.com, and FertilityFriend.com for the PRESTO cohort. SA Missmer serves as an advisory board member for AbbVie and a single working group service for Roche; neither are related to this study. No other authors have a conflict of interest to report. Funders had no role in the study design, conduct of the study or data analysis, writing of the report, or decision to submit the article for publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Outcome instruments

rASRM

Condition tags

mesh:D004715endometriosisendometrioma

MeSH descriptors

Endometriosis Endometriosis Endometriosis Child Cohort Studies Female Fertility Humans Pregnancy Risk Factors Self Report

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 (32)

Cited by (48)

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-06-04T01:30:01.192114+00:00
openalex
last seen: 2026-06-10T17:14:06.276822+00:00
pubmed
last seen: 2026-05-13T22:24:49.034193+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK