Author's response.

OA: gold CC-BY-NC-4.0
AI-generated summary by claude@2026-07+body, 2026-07-31

This response clarifies that a consensus statement on endometriosis imaging integrates current evidence, author opinions, and experience, rather than solely relying on evidence-based medicine methodologies.

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

Full text 2,211 characters · extracted from oa-pdf · click to expand
377 Facts Views Vis Obgyn , 2022, 16 (3): 377 Author’s response Dear Editor, We would like to thank Koninckx et al. (2024) for their critical comments. In response to the points raised by Koninckx and colleagues we would like to make some clarifying responses. The authors of this letter mention “…the overall poor methodological quality of these studies” and that in the evidence included “…the preva - lence of deep endometriosis was not considered”. We would like to remind Koninckx et al. that the work is a consensus statement but neither a systematic review on the accuracy of ultrasound for detecting endometriosis nor an original work on the test accuracy of transvaginal sonography (Condous et al., 2024). The comments of the author are correct in the way that the grade of evidence we have derives from studies of both lower and higher quality. This is, by the way, a problem that evidence-based medicine is confronted with. Consensus derives from the Latin word consentio and means “feel together” or “agree”. The consensus statement published is the result of such a process. This process of “agreeing” was based on several factors; the current evidence, the opinion of the authors and – of course – their personal experience. Opinions are based on these issues but should not solely be corrected for experience as suggested by Koninckx et al. (2024). Finally, the manuscript of course underwent peer-review. To our surprise, one co-author of this letter took part in the consensus process as well. Whether a change of opinion or some kind of misunderstand- ing of the very final version of the consensus work may explain this, remains unknown. G. Hudelist, B. Gerges, G. Condous References Condous G, Gerges B, Thomassin-Naggara I et al. Non- invasive imaging techniques for diagnosis of pelvic deep endometriosis and endometriosis classification systems: an International Consensus Statement. Facts Views Vis ObGyn. 2024;16:127-44. Koninckx PR, Ussia A, Amro B et al. Comments on Non- invasive imaging techniques for diagnosis of pelvic deep endometriosis and endometriosis classification systems: an International Consensus Statement. Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2024;16.

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-pdf

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2024) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-08-04T06:16:37.499272+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-05-21T05:10:58.409756+00:00
License: CC-BY-NC-4.0