Diagnostics · Endometrial Assessment

Evaluation of the impact of intraobserver variability on endometrial dating and the diagnosis of luteal phase defects

Scott RT, Snyder RR, Bagnall JW, Reed KD, Adair CF, Hensley SD

Published October 1993 Fertility and Sterility, 60(4), 652-657
DOI 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)56216-5 PMID 8405519

Abstract

Objective

To determine the magnitude of intraobserver variation in dating endometrial biopsies and its impact on clinical management.

Design

Blinded histopathologic interpretation of endometrial biopsy specimens 1 year apart by five pathologists.

Setting

Large military tertiary care center.

Patients

Endometrial biopsy specimens from 51 patients undergoing evaluation for potential luteal phase defects.

Interventions

None.

Main Outcome Measures

Calculation of the magnitude of the individual and overall intraobserver variation in endometrial dating for the five pathologists and estimation of its potential impact on clinical management.

Results

The intraobserver variation was 0.69 +/- 0.05 days (means +/- SE). There was no significant difference in the magnitude of the variation for 1-day or 2-day dating ranges. The theoretical probability of altering clinical management by having the same pathologist redate a given specimen ranged from 15% to 28%.

Conclusion

Histologic dating of endometrial biopsies is subject to a small but highly clinically significant intraobserver variability that may have a major impact on clinical management.

Topics

By this author

Related research

Diagnostics › Endometrial Assessment › Luteal Phase Biopsy · Research Methods › Measurement and Statistics › Research Tooling and Reproducibility · Menstrual Cycle › Cycle Disorders › Ovulatory Disturbances
Richard T. Scott, Russell R. Snyder, James W. Bagnall, Kurt D. Reed, Carol F. Adair, Samuel D. Hensley
Rick Scott, Dick Scott, Rich Scott, R Scott, R Snyder, Jim Bagnall, Jimmy Bagnall, J Bagnall, K Reed, C Adair, Sam Hensley, S Hensley
PMID 8405519 8405519 DOI 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)56216-5 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)56216-5 Scott et al. 1993, Scott 1993