Cited by 16Endometriosis Research and TreatmentEctopic Pregnancy Diagnosis and ManagementMobile Health and mHealth Applications

Use of the Free Endometriosis Risk Advisor App as a Non-Invasive Screening Test for Endometriosis in Patients with Chronic Pelvic Pain and/or Unexplained Infertility

Open access
Nezhat, Camran, Armani, Ellie, Chen, Hsuan-Chih Carolina, Najmi, Zahra, Lindheim, Steven R., Nezhat, Ceana·2023·Journal of Clinical Medicine

Abstract

Endometriosis is a prevalent condition that affects millions of individuals globally, leading to various symptoms and significant disruptions to their quality of life. However, the diagnosis of endometriosis often encounters delays, emphasizing the pressing need for non-invasive screening. This retrospective cross-sectional study aimed to evaluate the utility of the Endometriosis Risk Advisor (EndoRA) mobile application in screening for endometriosis in patients with chronic pelvic pain and/or unexplained infertility. The study consisted of 293 patients who met specific criteria: they were English-speaking individuals with chronic pelvic pain and/or unexplained infertility, owned smartphones, and had no prior diagnosis of endometriosis. The results demonstrated that the EndoRA score exhibited a high sensitivity of 93.1% but a low specificity of 5.9% in detecting endometriosis. The positive predictive value was 94.1%, while the negative predictive value was 5.0%. Although the study had limitations and potential selection bias, its findings suggest that EndoRA can serve as a valuable screening tool for high-risk individuals, enabling them to identify themselves as being at an increased risk for endometriosis. EndoRA’s non-invasive nature, free access, and easy accessibility have the potential to streamline evaluation and treatment processes, thereby empowering individuals to seek timely care and ultimately improving patient outcomes and overall well-being.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/jcm12165234

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The Nezhat Endometriosis Risk Advisor application is a validated digital tool reported to have over 90% accuracy in identifying suspected endometriosis based on patient history and symptom profile.

    “All patients were initially screened using the Nezhat Endometriosis Risk Advisor application, a validated digital tool reported to have over 90% accuracy in identifying suspected endometriosis based on patient history and symptom profile [13].”

    From Selective Appendectomy in Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Surgery for Endometriosis: A Retrospective Cohort Study (2025) · cites this paper as [13]

    Section 2.3 (page unavailable) describes EndoRA as a validated application that assesses risk from symptoms and patient history. The Results (page unavailable) report 93.1% sensitivity and 94.1% positive predictive value in the studied high-risk patients, but only 5.9% specificity; they do not establish the claimed over-90% overall accuracy. The app’s >90% high-risk category is a risk label, not a measured accuracy rate. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The use of the free endometriosis risk advisor app as a non-invasive screening test may be a helpful adjunct to diagnosis.

    “The use of the free endometriosis risk advisor app as a non-invasive screening test may be a helpful adjunct to diagnosis [ 60 ].”

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nezhat, C., Armani, E., Chen, H.-C. C., Najmi, Z., Lindheim, S. R., & Nezhat, C.
Affiliations
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • Center for Special Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery (US)
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
  • University of Central Florida (US)
Corresponding author
Nezhat, Camran
Venue
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2023-08-11
Volume
12
Issue
16
Pages
5234
ISSN
2077-0383 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4385758410
Cited by
15
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3
FWCI
3.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Central Florida
  • Weill Cornell Medical College
  • University of California, San Francisco
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 › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
Keywords
endometriosis, mobile health apps, non-invasive screening, chronic pelvic pain, unexplained infertility, sensitivity and specificity

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