The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A systematic review of the accuracy of ultrasound in the diagnosis of endometriosis
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate transvaginal and transabdominal ultrasound scanning, with or without Doppler, as a diagnostic test for the accurate diagnosis of pelvic endometriosis. Methods: The MEDLINE (1966–2001) and EMBASE (1980–2001) databases were searched for relevant studies, published in English. Only studies fulfilling predefined criteria were selected. An assessment of quality was made for each study, and data were then reanalyzed using likelihood ratios to determine the usefulness of the test. Results: In total, 67 papers were identified using the search strategy, of which 17 described relevant studies. Of these, seven fulfilled the inclusion criteria. All seven related to the use of transvaginal gray‐scale imaging in the diagnosis of ovarian endometriomata specifically, rather than endometriosis. The positive likelihood ratios ranged from 7.6 to 29.8, and the negative likelihood ratios ranged from 0.1 to 0.4. Confidence intervals were wide. One paper addressed the use of conventional color Doppler with ultrasound: the positive likelihood ratio was 1.2, with a negative likelihood ratio of 0.4. One paper assessed the use of color Doppler energy imaging, and showed a positive likelihood ratio of 33.5 and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.1. Conclusions: Transvaginal ultrasound appears to be a useful test both to make and to exclude the diagnosis of an ovarian endometrioma. Copyright © 2002 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
ESHRE guideline: management of women with endometriosis
Dunselman, G. A. J., Vermeulen, N., Becker, C., Calhaz-Jorge, C., D'Hooghe, T., De Bie, B., Heikinheimo, O., Horne, A. W., Kiesel, L., Nap, A., et al. (2014) · Human Reproduction · doi:10.1093/humrep/det457 · Cited by 2,211
ESHRE guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of endometriosis
Kennedy, S., Bergqvist, A., Chapron, C., D’Hooghe, T., Dunselman, G., Greb, R., Hummelshoj, L., Prentice, A., & Saridogan, E. (2005) · Human Reproduction · doi:10.1093/humrep/dei135 · Cited by 1,584
Self-citationEndometriosis is a chronic systemic disease: Clinical challenges and novel innovations
Taylor, H. S., Kotlyar, A. M., & Flores, V. A. (2021) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(21)00389-5 · Cited by 1,425
Ballard, K., Lowton, K., & Wright, J. (2006) · Fertility and Sterility · doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.04.054 · Cited by 628
Imaging modalities for the non-invasive diagnosis of endometriosis
Nisenblat, V., Bossuyt, P. M., Farquhar, C., Johnson, N., & Hull, M. L. (2016) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd009591.pub2 · Cited by 538
Metadata
- Authors
- Moore, J., Copley, S., Morris, J., Lindsell, D., Golding, S., & Kennedy, S.
- Venue
- Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2002-12
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 630-634
- ISSN
- 0960-7692 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-0705
- OpenAlex
- W1966019576
- Cited by
- 244
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 4.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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.
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A systematic review of the accuracy of ultrasound in the diagnosis of endometriosis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1469-0705.2002.00862.x
- The paper
- Moore, J., Copley, S., Morris, J., Lindsell, D., Golding, S., & Kennedy, S. (2002). A systematic review of the accuracy of ultrasound in the diagnosis of endometriosis. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-0705.2002.00862.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.