ArticleInternational journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics2026
Global trends in the uptake of specialist diagnostic ultrasound and MRI scans for endometriosis: An international cross-sectional survey.
Article in International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The problem with the 'truth': rethinking ground truth for artificial intelligence in endometriosis diagnosis.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Global trends in the uptake of specialist diagnostic ultrasound and MRI scans for endometriosis: An international cross-sectional survey.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Endometriosis affects 1 in 10 women globally. We aimed to determine health provider involvement and preferred methods of obtaining an endometriosis diagnosis across international jurisdictions. A global cross-sectional survey, distributed through formal and informal FIGO Reproductive Medicine, Endocrinology, and Infertility (REI) committee networks from September through October 2024. A total of 445 respondents from 76 countries began the survey, with 360 completions. Of the respondents, 63.9% were female, with most being gynecologists. Academics and/or researchers comprised 6.7%, with 39.2% involved in research in some capacity. Endometriosis was largely diagnosed by gynecologists (95.0%), with most respondents overall describing ultrasound as the most common method of diagnosis (77.8%). Of those surveyed, 93.6% stated clinicians in their country used non-invasive imaging (predominantly ultrasound) to diagnose endometriosis before surgery. One third of respondents did not feel confident distinguishing between routine gynecological scans and specialist endometriosis imaging. Significant barriers for uptake of imaging diagnostics included access to training, cost, and geographical accessibility. Regarding adoption of non-invasive imaging in clinical care, "game-changing" effects were described, including improvements in surgical preoperative mapping, and patient-centered care, with concerns that it could increase clinical workloads. Significantly, shifts in endometriosis diagnosis, from visualization of lesions at laparoscopy to non-invasive imaging diagnostics, were observed internationally. Policies should aim to overcome barriers to uptake of imaging-based diagnostics by supporting training initiatives, reducing associated costs, and improving geographical accessibility. Respondents predicted transformative changes in endometriosis care once non-invasive endometriosis diagnostics are effectively adopted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.