Cited by 418Endometriosis Research and TreatmentEctopic Pregnancy Diagnosis and ManagementGynecological conditions and treatments

Peripheral biomarkers of endometriosis: a systematic review

Open access
May, K. E., Conduit-Hulbert, S. A., Villar, J., Kirtley, S., Kennedy, S. H., Becker, C. M.·2010·Human Reproduction Update

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Endometriosis is estimated to affect 1 in 10 women during the reproductive years. There is often delay in making the diagnosis, mainly due to the non-specific nature of the associated symptoms and the need to verify the disease surgically. A biomarker that is simple to measure could help clinicians to diagnose (or at least exclude) endometriosis; it might also allow the effects of treatment to be monitored. If effective, such a marker or panel of markers could prevent unnecessary diagnostic procedures and/or recognize treatment failure at an early stage. METHODS: We used QUADAS (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) criteria to perform a systematic review of the literature over the last 25 years to assess critically the clinical value of all proposed biomarkers for endometriosis in serum, plasma and urine. RESULTS: We identified over 100 putative biomarkers in publications that met the selection criteria. We were unable to identify a single biomarker or panel of biomarkers that have unequivocally been shown to be clinically useful. CONCLUSIONS: Peripheral biomarkers show promise as diagnostic aids, but further research is necessary before they can be recommended in routine clinical care. Panels of markers may allow increased sensitivity and specificity of any diagnostic test.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/humupd/dmq009

Cites

225 of 225 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • According to QUADAS guidelines, samples should be collected at a consistent phase of the cycle and results should be corrected for the cycle phases.

    “Firstly, according to QUADAS (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) guidelines [15,16], samples should be collected at a consistent phase of the cycle and results should be corrected for the cycle phases.”
  • According to a recently published systematic review, lack of correction for the phase of the menstrual cycle can explain the considerable variability between studies with respect to blood levels of biomarkers in women with endometriosis and controls.

    “Secondly, according to a recently published systematic review, lack of correction for the phase of the menstrual cycle can explain the considerable variability between studies with respect to blood levels of biomarkers in women with endometriosis and controls [15].”
  • Studies performed in various body compartments such as serum, peritoneal, and follicular fluids are not sufficient for precise evaluation of androgen levels.

    “Studies performed in various compartments in the body as serum, peritoneal, and follicular fluids are not sufficient for precise evaluation [17].”
  • Samples were collected at a well defined phase of the cycle and results were corrected for cycle phase, as recommended by the QUADAS guidelines.

    “In our study, samples were collected at a well defined phase of the cycle and results were corrected for cycle phase, as recommended by the QUADAS (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) guidelines [15,16].”
  • Despite ongoing research on biomarkers of endometriosis, there are still no satisfactory results, making it impossible to carry out effective laboratory diagnostics for diagnosis and monitoring of treatment of the disease.

    “Despite the fact that research on biomarkers of endometriosis are still ongoing, there are still no satisfactory results, which makes it impossible to carry out effective laboratory diagnostics used in the diagnosis and monitoring of the treatment of the disease [157].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 226 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
May, K. E., Conduit-Hulbert, S. A., Villar, J., Kirtley, S., Kennedy, S. H., & Becker, C. M.
Affiliations
John Radcliffe Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Becker, C. M.
Venue
Human Reproduction Update
Published
2010-05-12
Volume
16
Issue
6
Pages
651-674
ISSN
  • 1355-4786 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2369
OpenAlex
W2160282642
Cited by
418
References
226
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 36 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 38 · 2015: 32 · 2014: 32 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 23
FWCI
2.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Human Reproduction Update (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Endometriosis Research and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ectopic Pregnancy Diagnosis and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Gynecological conditions and treatments
Keywords
endometriosis, peripheral biomarkers, diagnostic biomarkers, serum biomarkers, plasma biomarkers, urinary biomarkers, biomarker panel, diagnostic accuracy, treatment monitoring, delayed diagnosis
MeSH terms
Antibodies, Cell Adhesion, Endometriosis, Female, Glycoproteins, Hormones, Humans, Leukocytes, Biomarkers, Cytokines, Apoptosis, Intercellular Signaling Peptides and Proteins, Proteomics, Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A

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