Cited by 243Endometriosis Research and TreatmentEctopic Pregnancy Diagnosis and ManagementGynecological conditions and treatments

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 121 of the 132 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 73 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Biomarkers in endometriosis: challenges and opportunities

Open access
Ahn, Soo Hyun, Singh, Vinay, Tayade, Chandrakant·2017·Fertility and Sterility

Abstract

Endometriosis is a debilitating gynecologic disease affecting millions of women across the world, with symptoms including dysmenorrhea, chronic pelvic pain, and infertility. Theorized to stem from the phenomenon of retrograde menstruation, the diagnosis of endometriosis is typically delayed by 8-10 years owing to misinterpretation of symptoms as common menstrual cramps in adolescent girls and young women. With increased incidence of endometriosis in young girls correlated with earlier menarche, the development of diagnostic biomarkers is imperative for diagnosing and treating women afflicted with endometriosis as early as we can. In the past few years, multiple reviews highlighted the list of potential diagnostic candidates in peritoneal fluid, blood, urine, and endometrial biopsies from endometriosis patients in different stages of disease and menstrual cycle. In this review, we explore the opportunities and challenges facing the field of diagnostic biomarkers for endometriosis. We highlight the importance of eutopic endometrium as a source of potential diagnostic biomarkers by looking at the expression levels of noncoding RNA in tissue as well as in blood. Finally, we discuss some of the challenges that hinder our efforts in validating candidate diagnostic biomarkers for endometriosis.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This review argues that noninvasive diagnostic biomarkers for endometriosis are urgently needed because diagnosis is typically delayed by 8–10 years, but disease heterogeneity, comorbidities, and nonstandardized sample collection hinder validation. It highlights eutopic endometrium and circulating/tissue noncoding RNAs as promising candidates, while cautioning that inflammatory cytokines and endometrial DNA methylome have not proven sufficiently specific.

Key findings

  • Diagnostic delay is substantial: adolescent girls delay seeking medical attention by 4.6 years, and it takes another 4.7 years until diagnosis; overall diagnosis is typically delayed by 8–10 years.
  • Endometriosis symptoms are more common than in women without endometriosis: nonmenstrual pelvic pain 38.7% vs. 14.3%, dyspareunia 29.5% vs. 13.4%, and infertility 11.6% vs. 3.4%; economic burden is $1.8 billion in Canada and $18–22 billion in the United States.
  • Candidate noncoding RNA biomarkers show diagnostic potential: plasma brain-derived neurotropic factor for stage I–II disease had 91.7% sensitivity and 69.4% specificity; circulating let-7b had 83.3% sensitivity and 100% specificity; miR-17-5p, miR-20a, and miR-22 discriminated severe endometriosis with an AUC of 0.90; a five-lncRNA combination had 89.7% sensitivity and 73.2% specificity.
  • Cytokine panels have been tested but are limited: one six-marker panel showed 60%–71% specificity and 87%–92% sensitivity, and a 28-biomarker panel showed 63%–81% specificity and 81%–90% sensitivity, but control selection and nonendometriotic pelvic inflammation can confound results.

Methods

  • Design: narrative review of diagnostic biomarkers for endometriosis, focused on opportunities and challenges in validation.
  • Data/sample: literature on candidate biomarkers from peritoneal fluid, blood, urine, endometrial biopsies, eutopic endometrium, and epigenetic markers, including miRNA and lncRNA; no primary cohort or new experimental data are reported.
  • Main analysis: synthesizes prior reviews, meta-analyses, and selected studies to evaluate biomarker specificity/sensitivity and discuss barriers to clinical validation; evident from the text that this is not a systematic review or meta-analysis.

Limitations

  • The paper states that endometriosis is heterogeneous in phenotype and symptoms, with endopelvic and extrapelvic manifestations, and that comorbidities such as autoimmune disorders, migraines, gastrointestinal problems, and adenomyosis can mask or confound biomarker signals.
  • The paper states that biomarker studies are limited by unstandardized sample collection, storage, and phenotyping; small sample sizes; lack of representation across all disease stages and menstrual stages; and discrepancies between tissue and blood miRNA expression.
  • Evident from the text: as a narrative review, it does not provide a systematic search strategy, quantitative synthesis, or primary validation data, so its conclusions depend on selected published literature.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.01.009

Cites

121 of 121 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 73 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 61 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 8
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 2
10 of 10
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Laparoscopic surgery remains the current criterion-standard diagnostic tool for endometriosis.

    “Laparoscopic surgery remains the current criterion-standard diagnostic tool; however, it is unlikely that women of reproductive age would subject themselves to such an invasive surgery when they can opt to temporarily diminish pain symptoms by means of other therapeutic mechanisms.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Women of reproductive age would be unlikely to subject themselves to laparoscopic surgery when they can opt to temporarily diminish pain symptoms by other therapeutic mechanisms.

    “Laparoscopic surgery remains the current criterion-standard diagnostic tool; however, it is unlikely that women of reproductive age would subject themselves to such an invasive surgery when they can opt to temporarily diminish pain symptoms by means of other therapeutic mechanisms.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Only 10% of women develop endometriosis.

    “This is critical to elucidate why only 10% of women develop endometriosis although the phenomenon of retrograde menstruation occurs in 76%-90% of reproductive-age women (94)(95)(96).”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The physiologic process of menstruation is an inflammatory event.

    “The physiologic process of menstruation is an inflammatory event, as is the pathophysiologic process of endometriosis.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    There is a need for a diagnostic biomarker for endometriosis.

    “Along with the need to better understand the pathophysiology of endometriosis, the need for a diagnostic biomarker for endometriosis has been equally recognized.”
5 of 5

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Peritoneal endometriosis classified as both pelvic and extrapelvic

    Minor

    The paper first places peritoneal implants in the pelvis, then lists typical peritoneal endometriosis among extrapelvic manifestations.

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 132 references

11 of the 132 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Liu, 2015, Urinary biomarkers for the noninvasive diagnosis of endometriosis, Cochrane Database Syst Rev, CD012019
  2. Nisenblat, 2016, Imaging modalities for the noninvasive diagnosis of endometriosis, Cochrane Database Syst Rev, CD009591
  3. Nisenblat, 2016, Combination of the noninvasive tests for the diagnosis of endometriosis, Cochrane Database Syst Rev, CD012281

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 243

Metadata

Authors
Ahn, S. H., Singh, V., & Tayade, C.
Affiliations
Queen's University (CA)
Corresponding author
Tayade, Chandrakant
Venue
Fertility and Sterility
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-03
Volume
107
Issue
3
Pages
523-532
ISSN
0015-0282 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2586274172
Cited by
242
References
132
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 3
FWCI
3.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Fertility and Sterility (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Canadian Institutes of Health Research (394924)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Endometriosis Research and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Ectopic Pregnancy Diagnosis and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Gynecological conditions and treatments
Keywords
endometriosis, diagnostic biomarkers, eutopic endometrium, non-coding RNA, peritoneal fluid, blood biomarkers, urinary biomarkers, endometrial biopsy, biomarker validation, delayed diagnosis, retrograde menstruation, infertility, dysmenorrhea, chronic pelvic pain
MeSH terms
Biopsy, Endometriosis, Endometrium, Female, Genetic Markers, Humans, Menstrual Cycle, Predictive Value of Tests, Prognosis, Reproducibility of Results, Biomarkers, Comorbidity, Cytokines, Inflammation Mediators, MicroRNAs, RNA, Long Noncoding

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review