↓ Skip to main content

Clinical diagnosis of pelvic endometriosis: a scoping review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Women's Health, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
123 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Clinical diagnosis of pelvic endometriosis: a scoping review
Published in
BMC Women's Health, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12905-015-0196-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hedyeh Riazi, Najmeh Tehranian, Saeideh Ziaei, Easa Mohammadi, Ebrahim Hajizadeh, Ali Montazeri

Abstract

Accurate and timely diagnosis of endometriosis is associated with confusion. Clinical manifestations, imaging techniques, biomarkers and surgical techniques are used as diagnostic approaches. This paper reviews current evidence on clinical manifestation in order to help practitioners and perhaps improve women's health. A review of the literature on clinical diagnosis of pelvic endometriosis that appeared in the English language biomedical journals was performed using PubMed, Science Direct and Google Scholar. The search strategy included the combination of key words 'endometriosis' and 'diagnosis' or 'clinical diagnosis' in the titles or abstracts of articles. The search included all papers published during the year 2000 to 2014. Then, the findings were classified in order to summarize the evidence. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, in all 51 papers were found relevant and included in this review. In general we found three categories of diagnostic approaches for clinical manifestation including: i) diagnosis via symptoms obtained from history taking, ii) diagnosis via signs obtained from physical examination and iii) diagnosis via risk factors obtained from history taking. Diagnosis of endometriosis is a matter of concern. Since the disease is associated with diverse clinical symptoms and signs, deeper and more comprehensive consideration according to patient's history and clinical findings is recommended for early and more accurate detection in order to prioritize women for further investigation and contribute to its early management.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 122 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 21 17%
Student > Master 15 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 10%
Student > Postgraduate 8 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 6%
Other 24 20%
Unknown 36 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 47 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Engineering 3 2%
Other 8 7%
Unknown 44 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 July 2015.
All research outputs
#7,148,174
of 22,807,037 outputs
Outputs from BMC Women's Health
#761
of 1,811 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,733
of 264,533 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Women's Health
#9
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,807,037 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,811 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,533 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.