» Articles » PMID: 26141710

Reducing Low-value Care in Endometriosis Between Limited Evidence and Unresolved Issues: a Proposal

Overview
Journal Hum Reprod
Date 2015 Jul 5
PMID 26141710
Citations 14
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Quantification of benefits and harms of medical interventions should be based on high-quality evidence, which is not always the case in the endometriosis field. In many clinical circumstances, healthcare decisions in women with endometriosis are taken based on suboptimal evidence or on evidence of coexistence of benefits and harms that must be balanced. In these conditions, it is important to avoid or reduce the use of low-value care, i.e. interventions with defined harms and uncertain benefits, or whose effectiveness is comparable with less expensive alternatives. In particular, we suggest that: (i) non-surgical diagnosis based on symptoms, physical findings and transvaginal ultrasonography is possible in most women with symptomatic endometriosis. Thus, except in doubtful cases, laparoscopy should be intended for surgical treatment, not for diagnostic purposes: early diagnosis and diagnostic laparoscopy are not synonymous; (ii) future trials on new drugs for endometriosis should address those outcomes that are most important to patients, should be designed as superiority trials and should include a progestin or an estrogen-progestin as a comparator. Moreover, limitation of repetitive surgery for recurrent endometriosis is among the objectives of long-term medical treatment; (iii) indications for surgery should be the result of a balance between demonstrated benefits in terms of fertility enhancement and pain relief, specific risks associated with excision of different types of endometriotic lesions, cost-effectiveness and patient preference after detailed information; (iv) physicians, health professionals and policy makers should discriminate between screening for and diagnosis of endometriosis. Limited peritoneal foci, which are frequently observed also in asymptomatic women, regress or remain stable in about two thirds of cases. Therefore, the theoretical premises for a screening campaign are currently unclear; (v) physicians should develop the ability to effectively communicate quantitative information based on international guidelines and systematic literature reviews. This will assist a woman's understanding of the interaction between the evidence and her priorities, facilitating the transition towards value-based medicine.

Citing Articles

Factors associated with patients' demand for low-value care: a scoping review.

Fraser G, Lambooij M, van Exel J, Ostelo R, van Harreveld F, de Wit G BMC Health Serv Res. 2024; 24(1):1656.

PMID: 39731121 PMC: 11681654. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-024-12093-7.


Limitations and perspectives of the novel salivary test for endometriosis: an open web-based survey study of German gynecologic healthcare providers.

Nigdelis M, Doerk M, Burghaus S, Sillem M, Haj Hamoud B, Solomayer E Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2024; .

PMID: 39327299 DOI: 10.1007/s00404-024-07601-3.


Artificial Intelligence in the Management of Women with Endometriosis and Adenomyosis: Can Machines Ever Be Worse Than Humans?.

Cetera G, Tozzi A, Chiappa V, Castiglioni I, Merli C, Vercellini P J Clin Med. 2024; 13(10).

PMID: 38792490 PMC: 11121846. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13102950.


Opportunities and Limits of Conventional IVF versus ICSI: It Is Time to Come off the Fence.

Balli M, Cecchele A, Pisaturo V, Makieva S, Carullo G, Somigliana E J Clin Med. 2022; 11(19).

PMID: 36233589 PMC: 9572455. DOI: 10.3390/jcm11195722.


Patients' and relatives' perspectives on best possible care in the context of developing a multidisciplinary center for endometriosis and adenomyosis: findings from a national survey.

Omtvedt M, Bean E, Hald K, Larby E, Majak G, Tellum T BMC Womens Health. 2022; 22(1):219.

PMID: 35689259 PMC: 9188072. DOI: 10.1186/s12905-022-01798-8.