A new validated screening method for endometriosis diagnosis based on patient questionnaires

Charles Chapron, Marie-Christine Lafay-Pillet, Pietro Santulli, Mathilde Bourdon, Chloé Maignien, Antoine Gaudet-Chardonnet, Lorraine Maitrot-Mantelet, Bruno Borghese, Louis Marcellin
EClinicalMedicine · 2022 · vol. 44 , pp. 101263 · doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.101263 · PMID:35059616 · W4206342245
article OA: gold CC0 ⤵ 44 in-corpus citations
🔓 Open OA copy View on OpenAlex View on PubMed View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by claude@2026-06, 2026-06-07 ⓘ

This study developed and validated two questionnaire-based scoring systems (Score 1 and Score 2) that effectively identify patients at high risk for endometriosis.

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

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The time between symptoms onset and endometriosis diagnosis is usually long. The negative impacts of delayed endometriosis diagnosis can affect patients and health outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a case-control study using clinical symptoms and epidemiological data extracted from a prospective pre-operative patient questionnaire compared between patients with histologically proven endometriosis and patients with no endometriosis at surgical exploration from 2005 to 2018, in a French referral center. We used the beta coefficients of the significant variables introduced in a multiple regression model to devise a score (score 1), evaluated by the area under the curve (or C-index), with three levels, defined by a score between 1 and ≥ 25: (i) highly specific, identifying correctly the patients without the disease; (ii) highly sensitive, identifying the patients with the disease; and (iii) a level maximizing sensitivity and specificity for the best classification of the whole population. To minimize patient self-evaluation of pain, we devised a second score (score 2) with the same method and levels and scores definition, excluding visual analog scale pain scores, except for dysmenorrhea. These scores were validated on an internal and external population. FINDINGS: Score 1 had a C-index of 0.81 (95% CI [0.79-0.83]). Results for the three score 1 levels were: ≥ 25: specificity of 91% (95% CI [89-93]); < 11: sensitivity of 91% (95% CI [89-93]); ≥ 18: specificity of 75% (95% CI [72-78]) and sensitivity of 73% (95% CI [70-76]). Score 2 had a C-index of 0.75 (95% CI [73-77]). The three levels of score 2 were: ≥ 24: specificity of 82% (95% CI [80-85]); < 7: sensitivity of 92% (95% CI [90-94]); ≥ 17: specificity of 62% (95% CI [58-65]) and sensitivity of 78% (95% CI [75-81]). The two scores were internally and externally validated. INTERPRETATION: A score based only on a patient questionnaire could allow identification of a population at high risk of endometriosis. This strategy might help referral to specialized radiologists for a non-surgical endometriosis scan. FUNDING: None.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Condition tags

endometriosisdysmenorrhea

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 (44)

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: 2026-05-13T22:24:03.506079+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK