Schliep, K. C., Chen, Z., Stanford, J. B., Xie, Y., Mumford, S. L., Hammoud, A. O., Boiman Johnstone, E., Dorais, J. K., Varner, M. W., Buck Louis, G. M., & Peterson, C. M. (2017). Endometriosis diagnosis and staging by operating surgeon and expert review using multiple diagnostic tools: an inter-rater agreement study. BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 124(2), 220-229. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13711
Schliep KC, Chen Z, Stanford JB, Xie Y, Mumford SL, Hammoud AO, et al. Endometriosis diagnosis and staging by operating surgeon and expert review using multiple diagnostic tools: an inter-rater agreement study. BJOG. 2017;124(2):220-229. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.13711
Schliep, K. C., et al. "Endometriosis diagnosis and staging by operating surgeon and expert review using multiple diagnostic tools: an inter-rater agreement study." BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, vol. 124, no. 2, 2017, pp. 220-229.
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development04byxyr05
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Linked to ROR, the Research Organization Registry
RRM Academy Synopsis
Reviewers agreed with surgeons on endometriosis from images, reports
Four expert reviewers matched the surgeon's endometriosis diagnosis in 93% of 148 women once they read the operative report. The women came from five Utah surgical centers. Staging agreement was lower than diagnosis agreement. In the 67 women with histology, agreement dropped after reviewers saw it.
Key Findings
Reviewers agreed with surgeons on diagnosis in 83% of women after viewing digital images alone, and in 93% after also reading operative reports.
Agreement statistics for diagnosis (κ=0.67) and algorithm staging (κ=0.64) rose after operative reports (κ=0.88 and κ=0.85).
Staging agreement was lower than diagnosis agreement: 49% by empiric assessment and 57% by algorithm after images alone, rising to 60% and 72% with operative reports.
MRI matched the surgeon's diagnosis in 24 of 36 women. MRI sensitivity was 55.6% (95% CI 35.3%, 74.5%) and specificity 100% (95% CI 66.2%, 100.0%).
After reviewers saw operative and histopathologic reports (histology round, 67 women), between 7 and 10 women moved from a positive to a negative diagnosis.
Interpretation
The study measures how often reviewers and surgeons gave the same answer. Agreement is a measure of consistency between raters. The 148 women came from one state and were mostly non-Hispanic white, and four reviewers took part. Only 36 women had MRI and 67 had histology, so the authors say those estimates may be imprecise. Surgeons did not see histology before surgery. The paper leaves open whether negative histology reflects less disease or a missed sample.
RRM Context
Restorative reproductive medicine starts by finding the cause, so the diagnosis matters first. The authors cite guidance that positive histology confirms endometriosis. Negative histology does not exclude it. They also call for better staging systems that track pain and fertility outcomes.
Our editorial summary of this paper, not the article's abstract.
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.
Minjeur M et al., 2026·Journal of Restorative Reproductive Medicine·Free to read
Infertility is a clinical condition that is recognized by the symptom of an inability to conceive through sexual intercourse or to sustain a pregnancy, with that symptom indicating underlying male and/or female pathology.
This definition of infertility was developed through a structured, consensus-informed process involving broad stakeholder engagement. Initially, multiple definitions currently used by various medical professional organizations were reviewed, and a definition document was drafted and submitted to the Board of Directors of the International Institute for Restorative Reproductive Medicine (IIRRM). All IIRRM members were invited to provide feedback on the draft. Approximately 2,500 individuals and 44 organizations from 92 countries were then invited to review the proposed document, representing clinical, scientific, patient, policy, and advocacy perspectives. Submitted comments were reviewed thematically, with suggested revisions evaluated for clarity, clinical relevance, inclusiveness, and consistency with contemporary restorative reproductive medicine. Following this review, 3 substantive changes, 18 minor changes, and 15 citation corrections were incorporated into the final draft which resulted in a revised definition intended to better reflect the medical, social, and practical realities of modern infertility evaluation and care. Final approval by the IIRRM Board of Directors was unanimous.
Kahn LG et al., 2026·JAMA Network Open·Free full text on PubMed Central
Increasing numbers of children are conceived using infertility treatment; concerns remain about potential effects on child neurodevelopment. To evaluate whether infertility treatment is associated with child neurodevelopment and whether such an association may be attributable to underlying subfecundity. DESIGN, SETTING, This cohort study was conducted among mother-child dyads in the National Institutes of Health Environmental Influences on Child Health Outcomes (ECHO) Cohort, with infants conceived between 1998 and 2022. Associations of subfecundity and infertility treatment with neurodevelopmental outcomes were assessed among children ages 2 to 10 years. Data were analyzed from May 14, 2025, to March 31, 2026. Subfecundity was defined as prior consultation for, treatment of, or diagnosis of infertility for either partner; at least 2 prior miscarriages; or ever having had unprotected heterosexual intercourse for 12 months without conceiving. Infertility treatment was categorized as in vitro fertilization (IVF) or non-IVF treatment. Harmonized caregiver responses to the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire and the Child Behavior Checklist yielded continuous raw scores for externalizing and internalizing problems. The total raw Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS) score quantified autism-like symptoms. Caregivers reported physician diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Among 15 382 mother-infant dyads, there were 14 191 unique maternal participants (mean [SD] age at delivery, 30.9 [5.33] years; 8780 parous participants [57.1%]). ASD and ADHD were diagnosed in 876 offspring (7.6%) and 819 offspring (7.1%), respectively. In generalized linear models, subfecundity was associated with higher externalizing problem and SRS scores among all pregnancies (externalizing problems: b = 0.47 [95% CI, 0.14-0.81]; SRS score: b = 1.08 [95% CI, 0.01-2.14]) and when restricted to natural conceptions (externalizing problems: b = 0.45 [95% CI, 0.07-0.83]; SRS score: b = 1.12 [95% CI, -0.09 to 2.34]). Offspring of parents with subfecundity had higher odds of ASD (overall: odds ratio [OR], 1.27 [95% CI, 1.03-1.57]; natural conceptions: OR, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.04-1.64]). Children conceived via non-IVF treatment had higher odds of ADHD compared with those conceived via natural conception with subfecundity (OR, 1.77 [95% CI, 1.16-2.68]) or without subfecundity (OR, 1.54 [95% CI, 1.05-2.25]). There were no significant associations for IVF treatment. In this large US cohort study, subfecundity was associated with elevated scores for caregiver-reported symptoms of behavioral problems and higher odds of ASD diagnosis, independent of infertility treatment. Non-IVF treatment was associated with ADHD, warranting further research into specific indications for treatment that may increase risk of offspring neurodevelopmental problems.
Stanford JB et al., 2026·Frontiers in Reproductive Health·Free full text on PubMed Central
Background The total fertility rate (TFR) in most developed countries has been declining for decades. In the United States (U.S.), the total fertility rate has remained below replacement level since 2007. Subfertility affects at least 15% of women or couples over their reproductive lifespan and contributes to reduced TFR. Restorative reproductive medicine (RRM) is a medically based approach to subfertility care that can be delivered in primary care settings to increase live birth rates. Objective To estimate the theoretical impact of use of RRM among subfertile couples in the United States. Methods We conducted a simulation study. Model inputs included the number of women of reproductive age in the United States by 5-year age groups; current age-specific and total fertility rates; the proportion of women in each age group with subfertility; estimated spontaneous live birth rates among women with subfertility; and age-specific crude live birth rates with RRM treatment. We evaluated fifteen scenarios including sensitivity analyses: two different varying assumptions for spontaneous conception (25% vs. 50%), two levels of RRM utilization among subfertile women (20% vs. 50%), three different estimates of the number of subfertile women who would be potentially eligible for RRM treatment, and 4 different levels of effectiveness (live birth) from RRM treatment. Results The baseline TFR in the United States was 1.77 during 2015-2019, and 13.5% of women ages 20-44 were estimated to have subfertility. In a conservative scenario (50% spontaneous births; 20% RRM utilization; married women trying to conceive for at least 12 months, 20.7% RRM live births), the TFR increased to 1.79, representing a 1.0% relative increase (absolute +0.02). In an optimistic scenario (25% spontaneous births; 50% RRM utilization; all subfertile women), the TFR increased to 2.02, a 14.5% relative increase (absolute +0.26), approaching replacement-level fertility. Conclusion Simulation results suggest that expanding access to RRM within primary care settings could meaningfully increase the U.S. TFR, by reducing unresolved subfertility. Realizing this potential would require policy and health system changes to address workforce capacity, insurance coverage, and equitable access. These findings underscore the potential contribution of non-IVF fertility care pathways in addressing population-level fertility decline.
Schliep KC et al., 2012·Obstet Gynecol·Free full text on PubMed Central
To estimate the interrater and intrarater reliability of endometriosis diagnosis and severity of disease among gynecologic surgeons viewing operative digital images. The study population comprised a random sample (n=148 [36%]) of women who participated in the Endometriosis: Natural History, Diagnosis and Outcomes study. Four academic expert and four local, specialized expert surgeons reviewed the images, diagnosed the presence or absence of endometriosis for each woman, and rated severity using the revised American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) criteria. Interrater-level and intrarater-level agreement were calculated for both endometriosis diagnosis and staging. The interrater reliability for endometriosis diagnosis among the eight surgeons was substantial: Fleiss κ=0.69 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64-0.74). Surgeons agreed on revised ASRM endometriosis staging criteria after experienced assessment in a majority of cases (mean 61%, range 52-75%) with moderate interrater reliability: Fleiss κ=0.44 (95% CI 0.41-0.47). The intrarater reliability for experienced assessment compared with computer-assisted revised ASRM staging was almost perfect (mean weighted κ=0.95, range 0.89-0.99). Substantial reliability was found for revised ASRM endometriosis diagnosis, whereas moderate reliability was observed for staging. Almost perfect reliability was observed for surgeons' rating of disease severity compared with computerized-assisted, checklist-based staging. Findings suggest that reliability in endometriosis diagnosis is not greatly altered by location or composition of surgeons, supporting the conduct of multisite studies or compilation of endometriosis data across clinical centers. Although surgeons appear to be skilled at assessing endometriosis stage intuitively, how staging of disease burden correlates with clinical outcomes remains to be developed.
De Corte P et al., 2025·BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology·Free full text on PubMed Central
Endometriosis diagnosis reportedly faces delays of up to 10 years. Despite growing awareness and improved guidelines, information on the current status is limited. To systematically assess the published evidence on the status of time to diagnosis in individuals with endometriosis, with respect to the definition of time to diagnosis, geographical location and patient characteristics. MEDLINE (via PubMed) and Embase were searched for publications reporting time to diagnosing endometriosis since 2018. No restrictions to population or comparators were applied. All publications were screened by two independent reviewers. Search results were limited to primary publications of randomised controlled trials, non-randomised trials and observational studies. Case reports, secondary publications and grey literature were excluded. No restrictions were made regarding language, provided that an English title and abstract were available. Publications were assessed with respect to time to diagnosis, diagnostic methods, study type, study country and potential bias. The 17 publications eligible for inclusion in this literature review were all observational studies. The publications reported diagnosis times between 0.3 and 12 years, with variations depending on the definition of time to diagnosis (overall, primary, or clinical), geographical location and characteristics of the included study population. Evidence was of poor to good quality overall. Diagnostic delay is still present, primarily driven by physicians, and this review underscores the need for standardised definitions, increased awareness and targeted diagnostic interventions.
Laparoscopy is the standard method to visually identify endometriotic lesions under magnification within and outside the minor pelvis. The aim of this study was to analyze the accuracy of laparoscopic visualization in diagnosing the various endometriotic sites as confirmed histologically. Presumed endometriotic sites were observed in 164 patients operated on under the clinical suspicion of endometriosis. Targeted biopsies were performed for histologic corroboration, comparing the laparoscopic findings and diagnosis to the histological results. The histological reports of the biopsies confirmed the presence of endometriosis in 138 patients (84.1%), but in 26 patients (15.9%), no evidence of endometriosis was observed. 100% of "red" lesions, 92% of "black" lesions, and 31% of "white" lesions turned out to be endometriosis. Of the 264 various suspected endometriotic sites observed, 142 (53.8%) were confirmed histologically. The most accurate diagnosis was in lesions on the parietal peritoneum of the pelvis, confirmed in 9/9 cases (100%); the ovarian fossa, confirmed in 8/12 cases (66.7%); and the uterosacral ligaments and posterior surface of the broad ligament, confirmed in 83/138 cases (60.1%). As for the other sites, the histologic confirmation rates in the ovarian surface, bowel serosa, and vesicouterine fold of the peritoneum were 48%, 40%, and 13%, respectively. Endometriosis has a multiple appearance, and the lesions may be confused with nonendometriotic lesions. It is clear that a nonhistology-based diagnosis may lead to unnecessary prolonged medical treatment and operations and may delay the proper treatment measures from being applied. Therefore, a meticulous histological confirmation should still be the first step in the laparoscopic diagnosis and treatment of suspected endometriosis.
Mak J et al., 2022·Reprod Fertil·Free full text on PubMed Central
Endometriosis is a benign disease that can cause pain and infertility in women. Debate exists over how endometriosis should best be diagnosed. On one hand, endometriosis can be diagnosed by directly examining pelvic anatomy via a surgical procedure known as diagnostic laparoscopy. On the other hand, the disease can be diagnosed via non-surgical means such as using medical imaging, the symptoms described by the patient and whether the patient responds to non-surgical therapies such as medication. In this debate article, we argue in favour of diagnostic laparoscopy. We review the safety of the procedure, compare the ability of diagnostic laparoscopy vs medical imaging to detect endometriosis and consider the benefits of formally diagnosing or ruling out the condition.
Research Methods › Measurement and Statistics › Statistical Methods · Endometriosis › Diagnosis › Staging and Classification
Karen C Schliep, Zhian Chen, Germaine M Buck Louis, Sunni L Mumford, C Matthew Peterson, Joseph B Stanford, Michael W Varner
K Schliep, Z Chen, G Louis, S Mumford, Joe Stanford, Joey Stanford, J Stanford, Mike Varner, M Varner
PMID 26435386 26435386 DOI 10.1111/1471-0528.13711 10.1111/1471-0528.13711 Schliep et al. 2017, Schliep 2017
Cite this article
Schliep, K. C., Chen, Z., Stanford, J. B., Xie, Y., Mumford, S. L., Hammoud, A. O., Boiman Johnstone, E., Dorais, J. K., Varner, M. W., Buck Louis, G. M., & Peterson, C. M. (2017). Endometriosis diagnosis and staging by operating surgeon and expert review using multiple diagnostic tools: an inter-rater agreement study. BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 124(2), 220-229. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13711
Schliep KC, Chen Z, Stanford JB, Xie Y, Mumford SL, Hammoud AO, et al. Endometriosis diagnosis and staging by operating surgeon and expert review using multiple diagnostic tools: an inter-rater agreement study. BJOG. 2017;124(2):220-229. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.13711
Schliep, K. C., et al. "Endometriosis diagnosis and staging by operating surgeon and expert review using multiple diagnostic tools: an inter-rater agreement study." BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, vol. 124, no. 2, 2017, pp. 220-229.