• Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand · Dec 2015

    Multicenter Study Observational Study

    Can we improve the prediction of pouch of Douglas obliteration in women with suspected endometriosis using ultrasound-based models? A multicenter prospective observational study.

    • Shannon Reid, Chuan Lu, and George Condous.
    • Acute Gynaecology, Early Pregnancy and Advanced Endosurgery Unit, Nepean Medical School, Nepean Hospital, University of Sydney, Penrith, New South Wales.
    • Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2015 Dec 1; 94 (12): 1297-306.

    IntroductionA negative "sliding sign" during transvaginal sonography (TVS) is associated with pouch of Douglas (POD) obliteration at laparoscopy in women with suspected endometriosis. The aim of the current study was to develop and validate mathematical ultrasound models to determine whether a combination of TVS markers could improve the prediction of POD obliteration as compared with the TVS "sliding sign" alone.Material And MethodsMulticenter prospective observational study. In all, 189 women (100 in the training set and 89 in the test set) with suspected endometriosis underwent pre-operative TVS and laparoscopy. More than 50 historical, clinical and TVS end points were recorded for analysis. Univariate/multivariate analysis was performed to determine significant TVS variables associated with POD obliteration at laparoscopy. Two logistic regression models were developed on a training set: POD1 - posterior compartment deep infiltrating endometriosis, right ovarian fixation, negative "sliding sign" (i.e. POD obliteration); and POD2 model - unilateral ovarian fixation, unilateral endometrioma, negative "sliding sign." The two models were then applied to a test set to predict POD obliteration. POD1/POD2 performance was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic curves (probability cut-off value at 0.5) and compared with "sliding sign" alone for prediction of POD obliteration.ResultsRespective values for POD1 vs. POD2 vs. "sliding sign" alone for training/test sets: accuracy - 96/96% vs. 93/97% vs. 93/97%; sensitivity - 93/88% vs. 83/88% vs. 83/88%; specificity - 97/97% vs. 97/99% vs. 97/99%; positive predictive value - 93/88% vs. 93/94% vs. 93/94%; negative predictive ratio - 97/97% vs. 93/97% vs. 93/97%; positive likelihood ratio - 32.7/32.2 vs. 29.2/63.5 vs. 29.2/63.5; negative likelihood ratio - 0.07/0.12 vs. 0.17/0.12 vs. 0.17/0.12.ConclusionsIncorporation of TVS markers such as bowel endometriosis, endometrioma and ovarian fixation into mathematical models does not appear to improve the prediction of POD obliteration as compared with the TVS "sliding sign" alone.© 2015 Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

      Pubmed     Free full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…