K C Schliep1,2, Z Chen1, J B Stanford2, Y Xie1, S L Mumford1, A O Hammoud3, E Boiman Johnstone3, J K Dorais3, M W Varner3, G M Buck Louis1, C M Peterson3. 1. Division of Intramural Population Health Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, Maryland, USA. 2. Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine agreement on endometriosis diagnosis between real-time laparoscopy and subsequent expert review of digital images, operative reports, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and histopathology, viewed sequentially. DESIGN: Inter-rater agreement study. SETTING: Five urban surgical centres. POPULATION: Women, aged 18-44 years, who underwent a laparoscopy regardless of clinical indication. A random sample of 105 women with and 43 women without a postoperative endometriosis diagnosis was obtained from the ENDO study. METHODS: Laparoscopies were diagnosed, digitally recorded, and reassessed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Inter-observer agreement of endometriosis diagnosis and staging according to the revised American Society for Reproductive Medicine criteria. Prevalence and bias-adjusted kappa values (κ) were calculated for diagnosis, and weighted κ values were calculated for staging. RESULTS: Surgeons and expert reviewers had substantial agreement on diagnosis and staging after viewing digital images (n = 148; mean κ = 0.67, range 0.61-0.69; mean κ = 0.64, range 0.53-0.78, respectively) and after additionally viewing operative reports (n = 148; mean κ = 0.88, range 0.85-0.89; mean κ = 0.85, range 0.84-0.86, respectively). Although additionally viewing MRI findings (n = 36) did not greatly impact agreement, agreement substantially decreased after viewing histological findings (n = 67), with expert reviewers changing their assessment from a positive to a negative diagnosis in up to 20% of cases. CONCLUSION: Although these findings suggest that misclassification bias in the diagnosis or staging of endometriosis via visualised disease is minimal, they should alert gynaecologists who review operative images in order to make decisions on endometriosis treatment that operative reports/drawings and histopathology, but not necessarily MRI, will improve their ability to make sound judgments. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Endometriosis diagnosis and staging agreement between expert reviewers and operating surgeons was substantial.
OBJECTIVE: To determine agreement on endometriosis diagnosis between real-time laparoscopy and subsequent expert review of digital images, operative reports, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and histopathology, viewed sequentially. DESIGN: Inter-rater agreement study. SETTING: Five urban surgical centres. POPULATION: Women, aged 18-44 years, who underwent a laparoscopy regardless of clinical indication. A random sample of 105 women with and 43 women without a postoperative endometriosis diagnosis was obtained from the ENDO study. METHODS: Laparoscopies were diagnosed, digitally recorded, and reassessed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Inter-observer agreement of endometriosis diagnosis and staging according to the revised American Society for Reproductive Medicine criteria. Prevalence and bias-adjusted kappa values (κ) were calculated for diagnosis, and weighted κ values were calculated for staging. RESULTS: Surgeons and expert reviewers had substantial agreement on diagnosis and staging after viewing digital images (n = 148; mean κ = 0.67, range 0.61-0.69; mean κ = 0.64, range 0.53-0.78, respectively) and after additionally viewing operative reports (n = 148; mean κ = 0.88, range 0.85-0.89; mean κ = 0.85, range 0.84-0.86, respectively). Although additionally viewing MRI findings (n = 36) did not greatly impact agreement, agreement substantially decreased after viewing histological findings (n = 67), with expert reviewers changing their assessment from a positive to a negative diagnosis in up to 20% of cases. CONCLUSION: Although these findings suggest that misclassification bias in the diagnosis or staging of endometriosis via visualised disease is minimal, they should alert gynaecologists who review operative images in order to make decisions on endometriosis treatment that operative reports/drawings and histopathology, but not necessarily MRI, will improve their ability to make sound judgments. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Endometriosis diagnosis and staging agreement between expert reviewers and operating surgeons was substantial.
Authors: Germaine M Buck Louis; Mary L Hediger; C Matthew Peterson; Mary Croughan; Rajeshwari Sundaram; Joseph Stanford; Zhen Chen; Victor Y Fujimoto; Michael W Varner; Ann Trumble; Linda C Giudice Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2011-06-29 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Jiyoung Byun; C Matthew Peterson; Uba Backonja; Robert N Taylor; Joseph B Stanford; Kristina L Allen-Brady; Ken R Smith; Germaine M Buck Louis; Karen C Schliep Journal: J Minim Invasive Gynecol Date: 2020-01-09 Impact factor: 4.137
Authors: Stefanie Burghaus; Sebastian D Schäfer; Matthias W Beckmann; Iris Brandes; Christian Brünahl; Radek Chvatal; Jan Drahoňovský; Wojciech Dudek; Andreas D Ebert; Christine Fahlbusch; Tanja Fehm; Peter Martin Fehr; Carolin C Hack; Winfried Häuser; Katharina Hancke; Volker Heinecke; Lars-Christian Horn; Christian Houbois; Christine Klapp; Heike Kramer; Harald Krentel; Jan Langrehr; Heike Matuschewski; Ines Mayer; Sylvia Mechsner; Andreas Müller; Armelle Müller; Michael Müller; Peter Oppelt; Thomas Papathemelis; Stefan P Renner; Dietmar Schmidt; Andreas Schüring; Karl-Werner Schweppe; Beata Seeber; Friederike Siedentopf; Horia Sirbu; Daniela Soeffge; Kerstin Weidner; Isabella Zraik; Uwe Andreas Ulrich Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2021-04-14 Impact factor: 2.915
Authors: Nathalie Vermeulen; Mauricio S Abrao; Jon I Einarsson; Andrew W Horne; Neil P Johnson; Ted T M Lee; Stacey Missmer; John Petrozza; Carla Tomassetti; Krina T Zondervan; Grigoris Grimbizis; Rudy Leon De Wilde Journal: Hum Reprod Open Date: 2021-10-22
Authors: N Vermeulen; M S Abrao; J I Einarsson; A W Horne; N P Johnson; T T M Lee; S Missmer; J Petrozza; C Tomassetti; K T Zondervan; G Grimbizis; R L De Wilde Journal: Facts Views Vis Obgyn Date: 2021-12