International survey finds majority of gynecologists are not aware of and do not utilize ultrasound techniques to diagnose and map endometriosis

J of Ultrasound Medicine

Ong

Espada

et al. 2020

Self Cite

Objectives-To evaluate whether gynecologic surgical trainees (fellows) can become competent in the real-time classification of the pouch of Douglas (POD) obliteration state and direct visualization of bowel deep endometriosis (DE) during a program with a prespecified number of transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) examinations. Methods-We performed a prospective study between December 2017 and December 2018. Three fellows (F1-F3) performed 50 scans each, which were all supervised by an expert sonologist, who performed the reference standard TVUS examination. The fellows performed a focused TVUS examination to assess the bowel and POD state, having been blinded to the patient's clinical history and reference standard findings. Immediate feedback and hands-on teaching were provided after each of the fellow's official classifications. To evaluate the number of scans needed to gain competency, the cumulative summation test for the learning curve was used. Results-A total of 150 examinations were performed on 145 patients. Twentysix (17.9%) patients had a diagnosis of bowel DE, and 34 (23.4%) were classified as having a negative sliding sign by the reference standard. The overall accuracy of the presence/absence of bowel DE was 90% (range, 82%-94%). The overall accuracy of POD state classification was 93% (range, 90%-96%). The cumulative summation test for the learning curve for bowel DE showed that F1 did not reach competency by 50 scans, whereas F2 and F3 required 21 and 25 scans, respectively. For POD obliteration, F2 did not reach competency, whereas F1 and F3 required 40 and 22 scans. Conclusions-Not all trainees can reach competency for TVUS evaluations of POD obliteration and bowel DE in a predefined number of scans.

mentioning

confidence: 99%

One‐Size‐Fits‐All Approach Does Not Work for Gynecology Trainees Learning Endometriosis Ultrasound Skills

J of Ultrasound Medicine

Ong

Espada

et al. 2020

Self Cite

“…As such, we are advocates for continuing education programmes for healthcare professionals and gynaecologists on endometriosis diagnostic tools as an important avenue to improve the lay population’s education 21 . In an international survey of gynaecologists, a minority of respondents used advanced TVS or MRI to evaluate patients with suspected endometriosis, and, in some regions, the availability of advanced TVS is potentially as low as 14% 22 . As such, we may suspect that gynaecologists are not yet teaching their patients, either passively or actively, about advanced techniques to diagnose endometriosis non‐invasively.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the knowledge of endometriosis diagnostic tools in a large, international lay population: an online survey

Rocha

Tun-Ismail

et al. 2021

BJOG

Self Cite

Objective To assess the general population’s knowledge regarding the utility and availability of tools to diagnosis endometriosis, with a focus on ultrasound. Design An international cross‐sectional online survey study was performed between August and October 2019. Setting and population 5301 respondents, representing 73 countries. Methods In all, 23 questions survey focused on knowledge of endometriosis diagnosis distributed globally via patient‐ and community‐endometriosis groups using social media. Main outcomes and measures Descriptive data of the knowledge of diagnostic tools for diagnosing endometriosis, including details about diagnosis using ultrasound. Results In all, 84.0% of respondents had been previously diagnosed with endometriosis, 71.5% of whom had been diagnosed at the time of surgery. Ultrasound and MRI were the methods of diagnosis in 6.5% and 1.8%, respectively. A total of 91.8%, 28.8% and 16.6% of respondents believed surgery, ultrasound and MRI could diagnose endometriosis, respectively (more than one answer allowed). In those diagnosed by surgery, 21.7% knew about ultrasound as a diagnosis method, whereas in those diagnosed non‐surgically, 51.5% knew (P < 0.001). In all, 14.7%, 31.1% and 18.2% stated superficial, ovarian and deep endometriosis could be diagnosed with ultrasound (32.9% stated they did not know which phenotypes of endometriosis could be diagnosed). Lastly, 58.4% of respondents do not believe they could access an advanced ultrasound in their region. Conclusions There is a limited appreciation for the role of non‐surgical diagnostic tests for endometriosis among lay respondents to this survey. Tweetable abstract International survey shows limited awareness of lay respondents about non‐surgical endometriosis diagnostic tools.

“…In an international survey of gynaecologists, a minority of respondents used advanced TVS or MRI to evaluate patients with suspected endometriosis, and, in some regions, the availability of advanced TVS is potentially as low as 14%. 18 As such, we may suspect that gynaecologists are not teaching their patients, either passively or actively, about advanced techniques to diagnose non-invasively. The reason behind that phenomenon is likely to be multifactorial, relating to system differences such as healthcare funding models (e.g.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the knowledge of endometriosis diagnostic tools in a large, international lay population: an online survey.

Rocha

Tun-Ismalil

et al. 2021

Preprint

Self Cite

Objective: To assess the general population’s knowledge regarding the utility and availability of tools to diagnosis endometriosis, with focus on ultrasound. Design: An international cross-sectional online survey study was performed between August and October 2019. Setting and Population: 5301 respondents, representing 73 countries. Methods: 23 questions survey focused on knowledge of endometriosis diagnosis distributed globally via patient- and community-endometriosis groups using social media. Main outcomes and measures: Descriptive data of the knowledge of diagnostic tools for diagnosing endometriosis, including details about diagnosis using ultrasound. Results: 84.0% of respondents had been previously diagnosed with endometriosis, 71.5% of which were diagnosed at the time of surgery. Ultrasound and MRI were the methods of diagnosis in 6.5% and 1.8%, respectively. 91.8%, 28.8%, and 16.6% of respondents believed surgery, ultrasound and MRI could diagnose endometriosis, respectively (more than one answer allowed). In those diagnosed by surgery, 21.7% knew about ultrasound as a diagnosis method compared to 51.5% knowing in those diagnosed non-surgically (p<0.001). 14.7%, 31.1%, and 18.2% stated superficial, ovarian, and deep endometriosis could be diagnosed with ultrasound (32.9% stated they did not know which phenotypes of endometriosis could be diagnosed). 58.4% of respondents do not believe they could access an advanced ultrasound in their region. Conclusions: There are significant gaps in the understanding of diagnosing endometriosis using non-surgical tools in this study population.