⚙
AI-generated deep summary
by qwen3.7-flash, 2026-08-13
· read from full text
ⓘ
This study evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of clinical-anamnestic data for adenomyosis by examining 110 patients, including 60 with confirmed disease and 50 controls. The results indicated that preliminary diagnoses were often incorrect, with adenomyosis mistaken for uterine fibroids or endometrial hyperplasia in nearly half of the cases, leading to a false-negative rate of 48% and low sensitivity. The authors concluded that current clinical assessment methods are insufficient for early diagnosis and require further refinement to improve forecasting and detection rates. This paper is centrally about adenomyosis — specifically focusing on the limitations of clinical history and physical examination in its diagnosis.
Abstract
The objective: to study a role of clinical-anamnestic data in development and an adenomyosis current at the present stage. Patients and methods. Еxamination of 110 patients, from which 60 – patients with an adenomyosis of different degree of activity and prevalence – the main group was conducted. Depending on degree of expression of the main clinical implications, characteristic for the adenomyosis, all studied patients with an adenomyosis (n=60) conditionally were divided into 2 clinical subgroups: 1.1 – the subgroup was made by 38 patients with clinically "active" adenomyosis; 1.2 a subgroup – 22 patients with clinically "inactive" adenomyosis. The control group was made by 50 patients of genesial and premenopausa age without adenomyosis Results. As a result of the analysis of preliminary diagnoses at pre-hospital stage at patients with an adenomyosis their appreciable heterogeneity was taped. So, from 60 patients at 50% this diagnosis was made correctly, at 18.7% the adenomyosis was mistakenly taken for a hysteromyoma, at 11.7% – for hyperplasia and polyps an endometrium, at 6.7% – for dysfunctional uterine bleedings; at 3.3% – for cystoadenoma an ovary. 10.0% of patients a long time were surveyed and treated at the neuropathologist, the gastroenterologist, the therapist with suspicion on disk hernia, osteochondrosis, colitis, adherent process and so forth Conclusin. On the basis of clinical-anamnestic yielded and results of gynecologic inspection the adenomyosis was suspected at 48 patients, from them is confirmed – in 28 cases. The share of false positive results made 41%. At the same time from 60 patients with the confirmed adenomyosis, in the clinical diagnosis this pathology was taken out at 31. Thus, the share of false-negative results made 48%. Sensitivity of a method – 51.7%, specificity – 59%. The received results need to be considered at early diagnostics and adenomyosis forecasting. Key words: adenomyosis, clinic, anamnesis, diagnostics.
Full text
3,231 characters
· extracted from
oa-html
· click to expand
- Role of clinical-anamnestic data in adenomyosis development at the present stage
Role of clinical-anamnestic data in adenomyosis development at the present stage
HEALTH OF WOMAN. 2017.4(120):54–56; doi 10.15574/HW.2017.120.54
Prudnikov P. M.
National Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education P. L. Shupyk, Kiev
The objective: to study a role of clinical-anamnestic data in development and an adenomyosis current at the present stage.
Patients and methods. Еxamination of 110 patients, from which 60 – patients with an adenomyosis of different degree of activity and prevalence – the main group was conducted. Depending on degree of expression of the main clinical implications, characteristic for the adenomyosis, all studied patients with an adenomyosis (n=60) conditionally were divided into 2 clinical subgroups: 1.1 – the subgroup was made by 38 patients with clinically "active" adenomyosis; 1.2 a subgroup – 22 patients with clinically "inactive" adenomyosis. The control group was made by 50 patients of genesial and premenopausa age without adenomyosis
Results. As a result of the analysis of preliminary diagnoses at pre-hospital stage at patients with an adenomyosis their appreciable heterogeneity was taped. So, from 60 patients at 50% this diagnosis was made correctly, at 18.7% the adenomyosis was mistakenly taken for a hysteromyoma, at 11.7% – for hyperplasia and polyps an endometrium, at 6.7% – for dysfunctional uterine bleedings; at 3.3% – for cystoadenoma an ovary. 10.0% of patients a long time were surveyed and treated at the neuropathologist, the gastroenterologist, the therapist with suspicion on disk hernia, osteochondrosis, colitis, adherent process and so forth
Conclusin. On the basis of clinical-anamnestic yielded and results of gynecologic inspection the adenomyosis was suspected at 48 patients, from them is confirmed – in 28 cases. The share of false positive results made 41%. At the same time from 60 patients with the confirmed adenomyosis, in the clinical diagnosis this pathology was taken out at 31. Thus, the share of false-negative results made 48%. Sensitivity of a method – 51.7%, specificity – 59%. The received results need to be considered at early diagnostics and adenomyosis forecasting.
Key words: adenomyosis, clinic, anamnesis, diagnostics.
REFERENCES
1. Adamjan LV. 2008. Endometrioses: the Management for doctors. М, Medicine:317.
2. Ajlamazjan EK. 2013. A genital endometriosis: new approaches to therapy: a management for doctors. SPb.:25.
3. Kohanevich EV. 2008. Pressing questions гинекологии: К, LLC «Book-plus»:161.
4. Baskakov VP. 2012. Endometrioznaja illness. St.-Petersburg: Open Company «Publishing house N-L»:452.
5. Bezhenar VF, Povzun SA, Fridman DB. 2012. The analysis of efficiency of ways of reception bioptate for histologic verification adenomyose. Magazine of obstetrics and female deseases:Т LIV.:4:37-39.
6. Sorokina AV, Totchiev GF, Toktar LR. 2010. Modern approaches to genetic diagnostics adenomyose. Bulletin RUDN. Obstetrics and ginecology 5:181-191.
7. Radzinsky VE, Sorokina AV, Zhilina NV. 2010. Immunological and genetic determinants adenomyose from a position of demonstrative medicine. Bulletin RUDN: Obstetrics and ginecology 6:138-145.
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.