Bridging the Diagnostic Gap: Reviewing Current Endometriosis Screening Tools and Models

Fatima Kathrada, Armorel Van Eyk, Van Eyk A, Chauke L, Lawrence Chauke
Journal of women's health (2002) · 2026 · pp. 15409996261478005 · doi:10.1177/15409996261478005 · PMID:42576664 · W7202200014
article OA: closed public-domain-us
View on OpenAlex View on PubMed View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by qwen3.7-flash, 2026-08-17 ⓘ

This scoping review synthesizes current endometriosis screening tools, including AI-driven models and questionnaires, revealing high accuracy metrics but significant gaps in external validation and comprehensive psychometric evaluation.

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

Abstract

Background: Endometriosis affects 10% of reproductive-aged women globally and is one of the major causes of infertility. It is a debilitating, chronic condition with an average diagnostic delay of up to 10 years. This is partly due to the lack of noninvasive tools to diagnose the disease, leading to disease progression and poor health-related outcomes.Aim: The purpose of this scoping review was to synthesize the available literature on the existing tools, their use and applicability, and identify current gaps in the field.Method: A comprehensive search was conducted to identify applicable studies using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines.Results: Eighteen studies were included in the review, with screening tools classified into four categories: questionnaire-based, app-based, machine learning and artificial intelligence (AI)-driven, and subtype-focused models. Among the included study tools, 14 reported on psychometric parameters with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve values ranging from 0.77 to 0.95, with machine learning and AI-driven models reporting the highest accuracy metrics.Conclusion: Significant gaps were noted across identified tools, particularly in external validation, comprehensive psychometric evaluation, and cultural adaptation.

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 (35)

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-08-22T06:09:51.966504+00:00
openalex
last seen: 2026-08-22T06:03:16.050905+00:00
pubmed
last seen: 2026-08-22T06:04:52.104734+00:00
License: public-domain-us · commercial use OK · attribution required
Courtesy of the U.S. National Library of Medicine