The DOI matches its Crossref record; 148 of the 149 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 198 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis
Open accessAbstract
Endometriosis is histologically characterized by the displacement of endometrial tissue to extrauterine locations including the pelvic peritoneum, ovaries, and bowel. An important cause of infertility and pelvic pain, the individual and global socioeconomic burden of endometriosis is significant. Laparoscopy remains the gold standard for the diagnosis of the condition. However, the invasive nature of surgery, coupled with the lack of a laboratory biomarker for the disease, results in a mean latency of 7–11 years from onset of symptoms to definitive diagnosis. Unfortunately, the delay in diagnosis may have significant consequences in terms of disease progression. The discovery of a sufficiently sensitive and specific biomarker for the nonsurgical detection of endometriosis promises earlier diagnosis and prevention of deleterious sequelae and represents a clear research priority. In this review, we describe and discuss the current status of biomarkers of endometriosis in plasma, urine, and endometrium.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This narrative review concludes that no single biomarker or panel has been validated for noninvasive detection of endometriosis, and laparoscopy remains the diagnostic gold standard. It surveys blood, urine, and endometrial candidates, highlighting promising but largely unvalidated panels and the need for Phase II/III validation.
Key findings
- Laparoscopy remains the gold standard, contributing to a mean latency of 7–11 years from symptom onset to definitive diagnosis; no blood biomarker or panel has been validated for clinical use.
- CA-125 meta-analysis showed 50% sensitivity and 72% specificity for stage I–IV endometriosis, and 60% sensitivity with 80% specificity for stage III–IV disease; CA-125 is not specific because it is also elevated in ovarian cancer.
- Several candidate panels report high accuracy but remain unvalidated, e.g. CA-125 + CA-19-9 + survivin mRNA had 87% sensitivity and a 10% false-positive rate; CA-125 + CCR1 mRNA + MCP-1 had 92.2% sensitivity and 81.6% specificity; a 4-marker panel (CA-125, VEGF, Annexin V, glycodelin/sICAM-1) showed 74–94% sensitivity and 55–75% specificity after initial validation.
- Endometrial nerve fiber detection by PGP9.5 showed 98% sensitivity and 83% specificity in a double-blind pipelle study, but a clinical laboratory adoption detected nerve fibers in 9/45 (22%) histologically confirmed endometriosis cases and 6/21 (29%) women without endometriosis, raising specificity concerns.
Methods
- Narrative review of the current status of endometriosis biomarkers in plasma, urine, and endometrium, framed by the four phases of biomarker development (Phase I preclinical discovery through Phase IV commercialization).
- Synthesizes published studies and reported diagnostic performance metrics; no new primary data, systematic search strategy, or meta-analysis is described.
- Main analysis is qualitative synthesis of candidate biomarkers, including glycoproteins, cytokines, oxidative stress markers, cell adhesion/invasion factors, angiogenesis markers, hormones, autoantibodies, miRNAs, proteomics, metabolomics, cell-free DNA, cell populations, urine markers, and endometrial markers.
Limitations
- Stated in the paper: most endometriosis biomarker studies remain at Phase I, only a few reach Phase II, and Phase III/IV has not been reached; no noninvasive test is commercially available or validated.
- Stated in the paper: common limitations include small sample size, suboptimal specimen characterization (e.g., no breakdown by menstrual phase or lesion phenotype), inconsistent sample handling/storage, and lack of reproducibility; proteomic technologies are costly, time-consuming, and need better standardization.
- Evident from the text: as a narrative review, it does not use a systematic search or formal quality appraisal, and it relies on heterogeneous studies with differing assays, sample types, cycle phases, and populations, which limits comparability of reported sensitivities and specificities.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
149 Not checked yet · 14 Own interpretation · 3 No basis given
In the paper
“CA-125 combined with interleukin-8 (IL-8) and tumor necrosis factors-α (TNF-α) in the secretory phase had a sensitivity of 89.7% and specificity of 71.1% in a study performed by Mihalyi and coworkers [36].”
§ Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis > 3. Blood Biomarkers > 3.1. Glycoproteins
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [36] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In addition to this lack of specificity, the sensitivity to detect all endometriosis stages is low [31].”
§ Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis > 3. Blood Biomarkers > 3.1. Glycoproteins
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [31] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Product development by industry, which has not yet been done successfully for noninvasive endometriosis biomarkers.”
§ Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis > 2. Diagnostic Test for Endometriosis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Unfortunately, the delay in diagnosis may have significant consequences in terms of disease progression.”
- Also stated in: § 1. Background · boosted
“Delayed diagnosis and treatment has significant consequences, as endometriosis is more advanced in women whose diagnostic laparoscopy is delayed, supporting progression of disease over time [13].”
§ Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [13] source
boostedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 1. Background · boosted
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Despite extensive research, no single biomarker nor a panel of biomarkers in peripheral blood has been validated as a diagnostic test for endometriosis [17, 20].”
§ Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis > 3. Blood Biomarkers
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“A panel of CA-125, chemokine receptor (CCR) type-1 mRNA, and monocyte chemoattractant protein- (MCP) 1 showed a sensitivity of 92.2% and specificity of 81.6% to detect endometriosis [40].”
§ Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis > 3. Blood Biomarkers > 3.1. Glycoproteins
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [40] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“A clinically reliable test for endometriosis can be expected to have a profound impact on reduction of health care and individual costs by [18]reducing time to diagnosis and the time wasted to see numerous health care professionals;subsequently reducing the time before individualized specialist care is invoked;subsequently reducing expensive hit-and-miss treatments;subsequently reducing expensive”
§ Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis > 2. Diagnostic Test for Endometriosis
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [18] 2014
- Not checked yetcites [25] 2008
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“longitudinal placebo-controlled trials with second look laparoscopy have demonstrated that 71–83% of untreated lesions will progress or remain stable over a 12-month period [14].”
§ Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis > 1. Background
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [14] 1994, Fertility and Sterility source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, all these results remain to be validated.”
§ Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis > 3. Blood Biomarkers > 3.1. Glycoproteins
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“According to a meta-analysis by Mol et al., the sensitivity for stage I–IV endometriosis was 50% and specificity was 72%.”
§ Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis > 3. Blood Biomarkers > 3.1. Glycoproteins
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [31] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 43
- Probably not a substantial claim. 8
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
In the paper
“A recent study showed a significant increase of CA-125 (P = 0.001), CA-19-9 (P = 0.015), and CA-15-3 (P = 0.017) in endometriosis cases (n = 50) versus controls (n = 35) [42].”
§ Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis > 3. Blood Biomarkers > 3.1. Glycoproteins
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [42] source
plaincorrelationaln = 50 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, CA-125 is not specific for endometriosis, being a tumor marker elevated in ovarian cancer [37, 38].”
§ Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis > 3. Blood Biomarkers > 3.1. Glycoproteins
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Overall, most endometriosis biomarker studies have remained at the level of Phase I [23] and only a few have made it to Phase II studies.”
§ Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis > 2. Diagnostic Test for Endometriosis
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [23] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Although there is consensus in the World Endometriosis Society that the development of a reliable noninvasive test is one of the top research priorities in endometriosis [11, 21]”
§ Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis > 2. Diagnostic Test for Endometriosis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“endometriosis is more advanced in women whose diagnostic laparoscopy is delayed, supporting progression of disease over time [13].”
§ Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis > 1. Background
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [13] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Since the extensive review of May et al., 2010, research in endometriosis biomarkers has accomplished the successful validation of biomarkers in an independent sample dataset [24], but still no test for endometriosis is commercially available.”
§ Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis > 3. Blood Biomarkers
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [24] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Blood is an interesting potential source of biomarkers because it allows repeated measurements, is easily obtained, and is highly suitable for high-throughput measurements [29].”
§ Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis > 3. Blood Biomarkers
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [29] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In summary, a non- or semi-invasive test would not only reduce the cost associated with endometriosis but also improve the quality of life of women with endometriosis by allowing early diagnosis.”
§ Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis > 2. Diagnostic Test for Endometriosis
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Ozhan et al. stated that a panel consisting of CA-125, syntaxin-5, and laminin-1 had 90% sensitivity, 70% specificity, and 88.7% accuracy to distinguish endometriosis patients (n = 60) from controls (n = 20) [41].”
§ Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis > 3. Blood Biomarkers > 3.1. Glycoproteins
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [41] source
plaincorrelationaln = 60- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“This delay in diagnosis is due, in part, to presumptive treatment of pain with oral contraceptives (OCPs) and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), as well as reluctance of physicians to refer women to gynecologists for definitive diagnosis, reluctance of women to confront their own pain for fear of a cancer diagnosis, and dismissal of pain, especially dysmenorrhea, as a “normal” event [”
§ Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis > 1. Background
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [12] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Another ovarian tumor marker, CA-19-9, has been shown to be elevated in endometriosis and has a comparable or lower sensitivity than CA-125 for the detection of endometriosis [23].”
§ Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis > 3. Blood Biomarkers > 3.1. Glycoproteins
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [23] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“CA-125 has been measured simultaneously with urocortin [34], chlamydia antibody [35], CD23 [39], and inflammatory cytokines [32]. However, none of these combinations provided a sufficiently high sensitivity or specificity for endometriosis and results remained unvalidated.”
§ Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis > 3. Blood Biomarkers > 3.1. Glycoproteins
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In a study conducted by Signorile and Baldi, Zinc (Zn)-alpha2-glycoprotein was identified by mass spectrometry (endometriosis cases n = 5, controls n = 5) as a possible biomarker for endometriosis and confirmed by ELISA to be differentially expressed (P = 0.019) in an additional cohort of endometriosis patients (n = 120) and healthy controls (n = 20) [45].”
§ Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis > 3. Blood Biomarkers > 3.1. Glycoproteins
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [45] source
hedgedcorrelationaln = 120 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“A different study assessing glycodelin A found a significant increase in serum of women with endometrioma (n = 57) compared with control women undergoing sterilization or having benign ovarian cysts (n = 42) and demonstrated the potential use of glycodelin A as a biomarker for ovarian endometriosis with a sensitivity of 82.1% and a sensitivity of 78.4% [47].”
§ Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis > 3. Blood Biomarkers > 3.1. Glycoproteins
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [47] source
boostedcorrelationaln = 57- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Follistatin, an inhibitor of activin, has been shown to be increased in endometriosis patients [23], especially in a subgroup of patients with ovarian endometrioma, and showed good sensitivity and specificity [43].”
§ Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis > 3. Blood Biomarkers > 3.1. Glycoproteins
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In a study by the same group, the inflammatory biomarker YKL-40 was significantly elevated (P < 0.001) in patients with endometriosis (n = 53) compared with patients without endometriosis (n = 35) and a positive correlation with disease severity was detected [53].”
§ Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis > 3. Blood Biomarkers > 3.2. Immunological Markers and Inflammatory Cytokines
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [53] source
plaincorrelationaln = 53- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In peripheral blood, IL-8, MCP-1, and RANTES showed potential as a biomarker, being significantly increased in endometriosis cases versus controls in, respectively, 46.1%, 50%, and 75% of the assessed studies [54].”
§ Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis > 3. Blood Biomarkers > 3.2. Immunological Markers and Inflammatory Cytokines
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [54] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Reported sensitivity was 69.4% and specificity was 100% [45].”
§ Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis > 3. Blood Biomarkers > 3.1. Glycoproteins
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [45] source
plainn = 120- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In a study by Vodolazkaia et al., univariate analysis showed the differential expression of several cytokines and chemokines in 232 women with endometriosis and 121 controls [24]. However, no cytokines or chemokines were included in the final proposed panel of biomarkers after multivariate analysis [24].”
§ Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis > 3. Blood Biomarkers > 3.2. Immunological Markers and Inflammatory Cytokines
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [24] source
plainn = 232- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In a study by Chen et al., PEDF was significantly decreased in women with endometriosis (n = 43) compared with women without endometriosis (n = 28), independent of the phase of the cycle and correlated with pain symptoms [71].”
§ Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis > 3. Blood Biomarkers > 3.5. Angiogenesis
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [71] source
plaincorrelationaln = 43- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Contrasting evidence exists on prolactin, leptin, luteinizing hormone (LH), and adiponectin levels in endometriosis patients versus controls, showing either no difference, an increase (prolactin, leptin LH) or a decrease (adiponectin) [23, 75, 76].”
§ Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis > 3. Blood Biomarkers > 3.6. Hormones
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Elevations of fibroblast growth factor-2 (FGF-2), angiogenin, and soluble Flt-I (VEGFR-1) in serum of women with endometriosis have all been recorded [23].”
§ Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis > 3. Blood Biomarkers > 3.5. Angiogenesis
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [23] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Additionally, serum anti-PDIK1L [77] and anti-syntaxin 5 autoantibodies [78] were reported elevated in endometriosis patients.”
§ Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis > 3. Blood Biomarkers > 3.7. Autoantibodies
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) was suggested to be elevated in women with endometriosis [72], although this was not confirmed in an additional study [23, 73].”
§ Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis > 3. Blood Biomarkers > 3.5. Angiogenesis
What the sources say
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Additionally, the potential use of circulating angiogenic cells as biomarkers for endometriosis has been examined, but no difference between endometriosis patients and controls could be detected [98].”
§ Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis > 3. Blood Biomarkers > 3.12. Cell Populations
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [98] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“These studies have shown promising results; however, proteomics technologies are costly and time-consuming [23], and there is a need for better standardization and reproducibility of proteomic technologies before they can be used reliably in clinical research projects [17].”
§ Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis > 3. Blood Biomarkers > 3.9. Proteomics
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Reduced plasma levels of miR-17-5p, miR-20a, and miR-22 [86] and elevated plasma levels of miR-16, miR-191, and miR-195 [87] have been found in women with endometriosis compared with women without endometriosis.”
§ Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis > 3. Blood Biomarkers > 3.8. miRNA
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Both total immunoglobulin levels and antiendometrial antibodies have been investigated as potential biomarkers for endometriosis of which the latter showed the most promising results, being more commonly present in endometriosis patients than in controls [23].”
§ Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis > 3. Blood Biomarkers > 3.7. Autoantibodies
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [23] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Though legitimizing urine as a diagnostic medium, this finding also suggests potential for reduced specificity, and it will be important to assess the ability of a urinary assay to differentiate endometriosis from other inflammatory conditions.”
§ Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis > 4. Urine Biomarkers
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This finding highlights both the prospect for miRNA dysregulation in the pathogenesis of endometrial disorders and the importance of accounting for menstrual cycle phase in the interpretation of miRNA profiles in biomarker discovery protocols.”
§ Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis > 5. Endometrial Biomarkers > 5.2. MicroRNAs
plaincorrelationaln = 4- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Relative to blood, urine evidences a significantly narrower dynamic range of proteins, thereby allowing more rapid preparation of specimens for proteomic interrogation.”
§ Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis > 4. Urine Biomarkers
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [105] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“A systematic review of over 200 potential endometrial biomarkers, including hormones and their receptors (n = 29), cytokines (n = 25), factors identified through proteomics (n = 8), and histology (n = 10) revealed sensitivity and specificity (reported in only 32 articles) ranging from 0 to 100% [113].”
§ Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis > 5. Endometrial Biomarkers
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [113] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“First, the endometrium evidences remarkable sex steroid-driven cyclic variation and regenerative capacity.”
§ Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis > 5. Endometrial Biomarkers
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [109] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Additionally, the urine proteome is relatively stable for up to six hours at room temperature and for over 17 years stored at −70°C [105].”
§ Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis > 4. Urine Biomarkers
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [105] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“MicroRNAs (miRNAs) evidence differential expression in the endometrium of women with versus without endometriosis and therefore offer potential as an endometriosis biomarker.”
§ Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis > 5. Endometrial Biomarkers > 5.2. MicroRNAs
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Interestingly, the dysregulation of miRNAs was cycle phase independent, though the relatively small sample size limited definitive correlation.”
§ Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis > 5. Endometrial Biomarkers > 5.2. MicroRNAs
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [121] source
plainn = 7- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Nerve fibers were first detected in peritoneal endometriotic lesions and these were thought to contribute to associated dysmenorrhea [137].”
§ Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis > 5. Endometrial Biomarkers > 5.4. Neuronal Marker
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [137] source
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Functional endometrial layer nerve fibers assessed by PGP9.5 immunostaining were detected in 9 of 45 (22%) of histologically confirmed cases of endometriosis and in 6 of 21 (29%) of women without endometriosis.”
§ Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis > 5. Endometrial Biomarkers > 5.4. Neuronal Marker
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [143] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This group further compared miRNA expression in women with mild and severe endometriosis and found increased endometrial expression of miR-21 and DICER in the more advanced stage of the disease [126].”
§ Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis > 5. Endometrial Biomarkers > 5.2. MicroRNAs
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [126] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These studies highlight molecular pathways that may be associated with the development of endometriosis as well as the changes in expression signature that exist in ectopically located endometrial tissue.”
§ Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis > 5. Endometrial Biomarkers > 5.2. MicroRNAs
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Other miRNAs and predicted cognate mRNAs demonstrating differential expression in eutopic endometrium from women with and without endometriosis include miR-23a/CYP19A1 and miR-542-3p/COX2 [128], miR-126/CRK [129] and miR23a/NR5A1 [130].”
§ Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis > 5. Endometrial Biomarkers > 5.2. MicroRNAs
What the sources say
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The specificity of endometrial nerve fiber density was further challenged by the finding of similar endometrial innervation and neuronal growth fibers in women with adenomyosis, with expression reported to be more correlated with pelvic pain than diagnosis [144].”
§ Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis > 5. Endometrial Biomarkers > 5.4. Neuronal Marker
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [144] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The adoption of validated, internationally agreed upon standard operating procedures (SOPs) for tissue sample collection, processing and storage, and standardized phenotypic and other patient data collection, are crucial to optimise sample quality, reduce variability, and enable cross-centre studies [17, 113, 148].”
§ Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis > 6. Standard Operating Procedures
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“A more recent study revealed 156 miRNAs differentially expressed between endometriotic tissue and normal endometrium, including twelve miRNAs known to be involved in fibrinolysis and angiogenesis [124].”
§ Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis > 5. Endometrial Biomarkers > 5.2. MicroRNAs
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [124] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Many centres worldwide have been collecting blood or other body fluids such as peritoneal fluid, endometrial fluid, and menstrual fluid, as well as tissue samples—in particular ectopic and eutopic endometrium—from women with and without endometriosis, for a variety of research purposes [145–147].”
§ Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis > 6. Standard Operating Procedures
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In a study of sharp curettage and full thickness hysterectomy specimens, PGP9.5 immunostained nerve fibers were detected in the functional endometrial layer from all women with surgically confirmed endometriosis but none of the specimens from unaffected controls, and this finding was cycle phase independent [139].”
§ Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis > 5. Endometrial Biomarkers > 5.4. Neuronal Marker
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [139] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To date, the utility of miRNAs as biomarkers for endometriosis has not been specifically tested.”
§ Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis > 5. Endometrial Biomarkers > 5.2. MicroRNAs
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Notably, the reports of miR-23a expression in eutopic endometrium from women with and without endometriosis showed opposite directions of dysregulation, with one study involving proliferative endometrial specimens and the other including only early to midsecretory samples.”
§ Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis > 5. Endometrial Biomarkers > 5.2. MicroRNAs
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Recently, the World Endometriosis Research Foundation (WERF) Endometriosis Phenome and Biobanking Harmonisation Project (EPHect) has developed a consensus on standardisation and harmonisation of phenotypic surgical/clinical data and biologic sample collection methods in endometriosis research [146, 147, 149, 150].”
§ Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis > 6. Standard Operating Procedures
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
MALDI-TOF does not allow direct identification of peptides or proteins that are differentially synthesized or secreted.
“Importantly, MALDI-TOF does not allow direct identification of peptides or proteins that are differentially synthesized or secreted, which is fundamental to further validation and clinical assay development, although protein pattern recognition holds promise for the future.”
The paper relies on this without support.
SELDI-TOF MS methodology provides differential proteomic profiles in the form of mass/charge (m/z) peaks without attendant characterization of the peptides or proteins.
“Importantly, the SELDI-TOF MS methodology provides differential proteomic profiles in the form of mass/charge (m/z) peaks without attendant characterization of the peptides or proteins.”
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?
In the citing paper
“The studies showed that a panel of cytokines, rather than a single biomarker, improve sensitivity and specificity values, with some panels showing the ability to discriminate between different stages of disease.”
From Biomarkers in endometriosis: Challenges and opportunities (2017) · cites this paper as [71]
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.
Rated major: it would touch a result — a value a result rests on, reported and recomputed p-values on opposite sides of the significance level, two passages that conflict with no sign which is right, or a cited work retracted before this paper was published.
In the paper
“Ozhan et al. stated that a panel consisting of CA-125, syntaxin-5, and laminin-1 had 90% sensitivity, 70% specificity, and 88.7% accuracy to distinguish endometriosis patients (n = 60) from controls (n = 20) [41].”
§ Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis > 3. Blood Biomarkers > 3.1. Glycoproteins
Reported 88.7 · recomputed 85
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“Functional endometrial layer nerve fibers assessed by PGP9.5 immunostaining were detected in 9 of 45 (22%) of histologically confirmed cases of endometriosis and in 6 of 21 (29%) of women without endometriosis.”
§ Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis > 5. Endometrial Biomarkers > 5.4. Neuronal Marker
Reported 22 · recomputed 20
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis > 3. Blood Biomarkers > 3.1. Glycoproteins
“a sensitivity of 82.1%”
§ Update on Biomarkers for the Detection of Endometriosis > 3. Blood Biomarkers > 3.1. Glycoproteins
“a sensitivity of 78.4%”
Citations
Cites
2 retracted
Pan, Q., Luo, X., Toloubeydokhti, T., & Chegini, N. (2007) · Molecular Human Reproduction · doi:10.1093/molehr/gam063 · Cited by 261 · cited 1×
“In contrast to studies comparing miRNA expression in eutopic versus ectopic endometrium, relatively few studies have compared miRNA expression in eutopic endometrium from women with and without surgically confirmed endometriosis [120, 125, 126].”
RetractedThe Expression and Ovarian Steroid Regulation of Endometrial Micro-RNAs
Toloubeydokhti, T., Pan, Q., Luo, X., Bukulmez, O., & Chegini, N. (2008) · Reproductive Sciences · doi:10.1177/1933719108324132 · Cited by 83 · cited 1×
“Other miRNAs and predicted cognate mRNAs demonstrating differential expression in eutopic endometrium from women with and without endometriosis include miR-23a/CYP19A1 and miR542-3p/COX2 [128], miR-126/CRK [129] andmiR23a/NR5A1 [130].”
RetractedMicroRNAs: Target Recognition and Regulatory Functions
Bartel, D. P. (2009) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2009.01.002 · Cited by 20,068 · cited 1×
“For example, most miRNA are able to regulate several hundred transcripts and several miRNA often regulate the same mRNA target [82].”
miRBase: tools for microRNA genomics
Griffiths‐Jones, S., Saini, H. K., van Dongen, S., & Enright, A. J. (2007) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkm952 · Cited by 4,432 · cited 1×
“With over 2200 distinct miRNAs identified to date, miRNA regulatory mechanisms are redundant, overlapping, and complex [81].”
Giudice, L. C., & Kao, L. C. (2004) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(04)17403-5 · Cited by 3,166
Self-citationSampson, J. A. (1927) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/s0002-9378(15)30003-x · Cited by 2,334
Giudice, L. C. (2010) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmcp1000274 · Cited by 1,924
Self-citationEskenazi, B., & Warner, M. L. (1997) · Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics of North America · doi:10.1016/s0889-8545(05)70302-8 · Cited by 1,617
Nnoaham, K. E., Hummelshoj, L., Webster, P., d’Hooghe, T., de Cicco Nardone, F., de Cicco Nardone, C., Jenkinson, C., Kennedy, S. H., & Zondervan, K. T. (2011) · Fertility and Sterility · doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.05.090 · Cited by 1,584 · cited 2×
“Endometriosis is a major cause of disability and significantly compromised quality of life in women and adolescents [3].”
Self-citationSimoens, S., Dunselman, G., Dirksen, C., Hummelshoj, L., Bokor, A., Brandes, I., Brodszky, V., Canis, M., Colombo, G. L., DeLeire, T., et al. (2012) · Human Reproduction · doi:10.1093/humrep/des073 · Cited by 1,070 · cited 1×
“A worldwide study of costs caused by endometriosis indicates that the average annual total costs per woman are 9579 euros, of which 66% is caused by costs for productivity loss, while medication counts for only 10% of the total yearly costs [26].”
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 10
- 1927, American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 14, 442
- 2014, Biomarkers of endometriosis, 321
- 10.1093/humupd/dmq009 · DOI · Paper page
- 2008, Health economics of endometriosis, 1
- 2011, Minerva Ginecologica, 63, 195
- 2013, International Journal of Fertility and Sterility, 7, 96
- 2003, Di Yi Jun Yi Da Xue Xue Bao, 23, 757
- 2008, Anticancer Research, 28, 119
- 2014, Biomarkers of endometriosis
- 2000, Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 85, 3292
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Clinical diagnosis of endometriosis: a call to action
Agarwal, S. K., Chapron, C., Giudice, L. C., Laufer, M. R., Leyland, N., Missmer, S. A., Singh, S. S., & Taylor, H. S. (2019) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2018.12.039 · Cited by 843
Self-citationBlood biomarkers for the non-invasive diagnosis of endometriosis
Nisenblat, V., Bossuyt, P. M., Shaikh, R., Farquhar, C. M., Jordan, V., Scheffers, C. S., Mol, B. W., JOHNSON, N. P., & Hull, M. L. (2016) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd012179 · Cited by 401
Fertile ground: human endometrial programming and lessons in health and disease
Evans, J., Salamonsen, L. A., Winship, A., Menkhorst, E. M., Nie, G., Gargett, C. E., & Dimitriadis, E. (2016) · Nature Reviews Endocrinology · doi:10.1038/nrendo.2016.116 · Cited by 378
Biomarkers in endometriosis: Challenges and opportunities
Ahn, S. H., Singh, V., & Tayade, C. (2017) · Fertility and Sterility · doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.01.009 · Cited by 242
Combination of the non-invasive tests for the diagnosis of endometriosis
Nisenblat, V., Prentice, L., Bossuyt, P. M., Farquhar, C. M., Hull, M. L., & JOHNSON, N. P. (2016) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd012281 · Cited by 231
Metadata
- Authors
- Fassbender, A., Burney, R. O., F. O, D., D’Hooghe, T., & Giudice, L.
- Affiliations
- Universitair Ziekenhuis Leuven (BE)
- Madigan Army Medical Center (US)
- Department of Development and Regeneration, Organ Systems, KU Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
- University of California, San Francisco (US)
- Corresponding author
- D’Hooghe, Thomas
- Giudice, Linda
- Venue
- BioMed Research International
- Publisher
- Hindawi Limited
- Published
- 2015
- Volume
- 2015
- Pages
- 1-14
- ISSN
- 1110-7243 (ISSN-L)
- 2314-6133
- 2314-6141
- PMC
- PMC4512573
- OpenAlex
- W1935876281
- Semantic Scholar
- 49184ea27e4695119ebaa60bce32622318c29b7e
- Cited by
- 195
- References
- 149
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 2
- FWCI
- 3.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- BioMed Research International (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (P50HD055764)
- 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, biomarkers, early diagnosis, plasma biomarkers, urinary biomarkers, endometrium, infertility, pelvic pain, delayed diagnosis
- MeSH terms
- Endometriosis, Endometrium, Female, Humans, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, Biomarkers, Early Diagnosis
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
