Letter to the Editor

In: Facts, Views and Vision in ObGyn · 2024 · vol. 16(3) , pp. 375–376 · doi:10.52054/fvvo.16.3.040 · PMID:39357871 · PMC11569444 · W4403054441
letter OA: gold CC0
AI-generated summary by claude@2026-06+body, 2026-06-07

This letter identifies methodological concerns regarding studies on non-invasive imaging for deep endometriosis, including bias from laparoscopy inclusion, unknown prevalence impact on predictive values, and the formulation of consensus opinions.

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

AI-generated deep summary by claude@2026-06, 2026-06-07

This Letter to the Editor comments on an International Consensus Statement compiling sensitivities, specificities, and likelihood ratios for non-invasive imaging in diagnosing pelvic deep endometriosis, arguing that the underlying studies have overall poor methodological quality. The author notes key limitations: results are conditional on laparoscopy being performed (which may bias included participants), and lack of blinding could allow imaging results to influence the decision to perform surgery, leaving false negatives and negative predictive values unknown and possibly inflating sensitivity and specificity. The letter also emphasizes that prevalence was not considered for predictive value interpretation, urging discussion of inclusion criteria, prevalence assumptions for PPVs, and how experience is defined when consensus opinions are used to grade evidence. This paper is centrally about endometriosis — it critiques the methodological and statistical validity of non-invasive imaging evidence for diagnosing pelvic deep endometriosis.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

My notes (saved in your browser only)

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 (8)

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-06-24T06:10:11.469335+00:00
openalex
last seen: 2026-06-10T17:14:06.276822+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK