This level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Endometriosis.
|
There is new research about the possible causes and treatment of this condition. 73.45.84.188 (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 30 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Smohamed30.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
This information is wrong and outdated. I propose removing and replacing it. It is a common endometriosis myth that young girls and teenagers do not have the disease when in fact they do: http://endometriosis.org/resources/articles/myths/
I myself had to wait nearly 20 years from the onset of symptoms at 13 years old. Possibly due to this erroneous belief among gynaecologists and was diagnosed laparoscopically in my 30's only after the disease had progressed and ruined my career and life so far. The diagnostic delay of this illness is a serious problem in the medical field and for those affected and should be acknowledged as such. Similar stories are common in support groups.
-Anonymous Endo sufferer 2001:14BA:7F9:5000:CC51:DEF8:1244:62D9 (talk) 14:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
2001:14BA:7F9:5000:CC51:DEF8:1244:62D9 (talk) 14:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Sections moved to here to see if anyone has sources compliant with Wikipedia's medical sourcing guidelines. All of this text is based on primary studies or non-MEDRS sources; please locate secondary reviews per WP:MEDRS. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches explains how to locate secondary reviews, and this template filler can be used to generate citations from a PMID. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
((cite journal))
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (help)" that you suggested below, and probably in a preferable prose format rather than what was more like a "list of substances that are lower or higher in people with endometriosis" without any knowledge about the actual direction of causation. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)2001:14BA:7F9:5000:CC51:DEF8:1244:62D9 (talk) 14:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Endometriosis correlates with abnormal amounts of multiple substances, possibly indicating a causative link in its pathogenesis, although correlation does not imply causation:
Endometriosis is a condition that is estrogen-dependent and thus seen primarily during the reproductive years. In experimental models, estrogen is necessary to induce or maintain endometriosis. Medical therapy is often aimed at lowering estrogen levels to control the disease. Additionally, the current research into aromatase, an estrogen-synthesizing enzyme, has provided evidence as to why and how the disease persists after menopause and hysterectomy.
Moved from article. Please review Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Diseases or disorders or syndromes (if this text is warranted and cited correctly, the correct section is "Society and culture") and Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Notable cases. This is nothing but a list, poorly sourced, bare URLs, and nothing in it to establish anything about these people having made a lasting impression upon public perception of the condition. Think Ronald Reagan with Alzheimer's disease, Michael J. Fox with Parkinson's disease, Magic Johnson for HIV, or the significant amount of published journal articles about Samuel Johnson and Tourette syndrome. Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia or an indiscriminate list. I have never heard of Marilyn Monroe having any impact on perceptions of endometriosis: if there are sources that cover the importance of these people to endometriosis, please bring them forward, but we don't need a poorly sourced list of trivia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Full text recent secondary reviews, compliant with WP:MEDRS, that might be useful (for gosh sakes, this article is citing a 1999 AAFP article!):
((cite journal))
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)((cite journal))
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (help)((cite journal))
: Explicit use of et al. in: |author=
(help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)((cite journal))
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)((cite journal))
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Of the 2 references given for cases affecting men and both marked unreliable, the first was a dead link, so I removed it altogether. The second mentions in the abstract that the patient died and no biopsy or autopsy samples were available to confirm the diagnosis. I'm not sure whether that's why it was considered unreliable for this purpose, so I substituted one that does include confirmation from biopsy samples, and therefore should at least be less unreliable. Pubmed only shows the abstract for that one, but the abstract says "Two previous reports of endometriosis in male subjects, who were also on estrogen therapy, are reviewed briefly.", so it may qualify as a review as well as a case report? In case it does, I removed the MEDRS marker - feel free to put it back if it doesn't. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 14:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
(To all in-line citations above. Added by me) Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
((cite journal))
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
((cite journal))
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
((cite journal))
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
((cite journal))
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
If anyone is interested, I ran upon this source which links Endometriosis and female attractiveness. http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/09/21/women-with-severe-endometriosis-may-be-more-attractive/?intcmp=obinsite.--v/r - TP 17:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Coming over here in response to a query at WPMED. Under Endometriosis#Genetics we state "There is an about 10-fold increased incidence in women with an affected first-degree relative.[15]
", with ref 15 linking to an article at eMedicine (not exactly our best sourcing); even worse, following that link takes you to the statement (under Genetics on the Etiology page) "Studies have shown that first-degree relatives of women with this disease are more likely to develop it as well.
" Searching PubMed led me to a 2012 primary study PMID 23167810 that states, ""Endometriosis has long been recognized as showing heritable tendencies, with a 5- to 7-fold greater incidence risk for first-degree relatives.[4]
" That seems promising, until you follow ref 4 (PMID 10711828, a 2000 review article), in which Table 1 has numbers that the citing study presumably summarized as "5- to 7-fold", but the words "relative risk" don't appear in that review (that said, the citing article is peer-reviewed and I think we could use that estimate). In agreement, a 2004 review article PMID 15541453 in The Lancet stated "The heritable features of endometriosis were first recognised more than 20 years ago when the risk for first-degree relatives of women with severe endometriosis was reported to be six times higher than that for relatives of unaffected women.
" I plan to add the latter estimate and citation to the article. -- Scray (talk) 18:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
What is the etymology? This needs to be included.174.3.125.23 (talk) 10:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
"Conservative treatment consists of the excision (called cystectomy) of the endometrium, adhesions,"
This is clearly surgical treatment which is not conservative. Conservative treatment is noninvasive treatment usually with medication. Am I not right?
doi:10.1001/jama.2014.17119 JFW | T@lk 22:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Just come across this disease for the first time. Pronunciation? Endometriôsis? Endometrîosis? Rothorpe (talk) 00:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I reverted these edits.
KateWishing (talk) 13:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
"Types of endometriosis : Endometriosis is not 1 disease
Clinically 4 types of endometriosis exist : subtle lesions, typical lesions, cystic ovarian endometriosis and deep lesions (for images of the different types .) Subtle lesions or non coloured lesions are small vesicles or flame like lesions. Typical lesions or powder burn or gunshot lesions are dark lesions in a white sclerotic area. Cystic ovarian endometriosis or chocolate cysts are almost exclusively found in the ovary. Deep endometriosis are nodular lesions similar to benign tumours.
The prevalence in women with pain and or infertility of subtle, typical, cystic and deep endometriosis is highly variable and estimated at some 80%, 50% , 20% and 3-4% respectively. The pain symptoms are highly variable being no pain, mild pain in 50%, severe pain in 70% and very severe pain in 95% respectively. Also the relationship with infertility is varies from no cause of infertility, a slight decrease in half of the women, a strong decrease of fertility also because of adhesions, to a questionable cause of infertility respectively.
It is traditionally believed, according to the Sampson theory that following retrograde menstruation endometrial cells implant and that these cells will subsequently develop into more severe lesions. Endometriosis therefore is considered a progressive and recurrent disease. In order to understand endometriosis, its symptoms and management, this however has to be changed. the endometriotic disease theory[1] considers subtle lesions as a natural physiologic phenomenon occurring at least intermittently in all women[2]. Following a genomic incident, and determined by the type of genomic alteration, the lesion will develop into typical, cystic or deep lesions, which are 3 different diseases Clinically typical, cystic or deep lesions therefore should no longer be considered neither as progressive nor as recurrent. This is fundamental for understanding surgery. Anyway, it is clear that
Most important is that considering endometriosis as at least 4 different diseases, is fundamental for understanding pathophysiology, symptoms and surgical therapy. , "
___
References
Hi Doc James. I presume, from your username, that you are a medical doctor. I am not, so, if so, I bow to your superior knowledge about endometriosis. In fact, until yesterday, although I had heard of endometriosis, I did not know what it meant! Because of an article I was reading in a newspaper, I just wanted a quick but accurate picture of what endometriosis means. So I turned to Wikipedia. I had no intention of reading the entire article - and I still haven't.
This is one mode in which I and, I guess, a lot of other Wikipedia users also, often use Wikipedia.
The main reason for my edit, yesterday, was that in order to understand the term "endometriosis", I really needed to know something else that I did not know - specifically, what the endometrium is, a word that was previously not mentioned until more than 1,000 words into the Wikipedia article, and, to build a little more detail into my picture of endometriosis, it was helpful to have some idea where the abnormal tissue is commonly sited.
By "other bit" I presume you refer to my second sentence, "In endometriosis, endometrial material grows ectopically outside the womb - commonly on the outer surfaces of the ovaries, the fallopian tubes, the uterus, the bowel, and on the peritoneum - the membrane lining the pelvic cavity." And, if so, you are right that the article "already said that other bit below". But it was more than 2,000 words below! True, I could have gone searching thought the contents list and found "localisation" then jumped to that text to read it.
However, the point is that with my edit in place as originally made, any reader could get a quick but accurate picture of the meaning of "endometriosis" simply by reading the introductory paragraph. I agree that my second inserted sentence repeats some information already in the first sentence (and I did for that reason consider rewriting and incorporating the first sentence into my slightly extended introduction) but it also introduces other material and an important related concept - ectopia, which I ensured was also linked to the relevant article, but which, now, after your edit, is not linked to from anywhere in the article and not mentioned until more than 1,000 words into the this article.
It is quite common for Wikipedia introductory paragraphs (and, in fact, for encyclopedia introductory paragraphs, in general) to contain material that is repeated and expanded upon later in the article.
I decided not replace the first sentence because it does provide a very short accurate and overt definition of endometriosis: i.e. it begins with the subject word, "Endometriosis is . . ." - something important which would have been lost if I had introduced the material in the 'logical' order of first defining "endometrium".
For all the above reasons, I believe that removing my second inserted sentence was a retrograde edit, rendering the article of less utility than with the sentence.
As to replacing my reference www.webmd.boots.com with one to the NIH website, I don't have a big problem with it. I agree, the NIH website is preferable because it contains less (looks like, no) advertising. But, this source is already linked to in the first footnote (and several others), whereas my reference provided another source not otherwise referenced in the article. However, the purpose of my link was to provide a source for the common sites of endometriosis, which I agree your link to the NIH site does, but it is now a superfluous reference because you have removed the information it was providing a source for!
There was, however, an error in the way my link was rendered, so that it linked to the main web site (www.webmd.boots.com) and not to the specific page on endometriosis (http://www.webmd.boots.com/women/endometriosis).
I don't know why the cite web tag works in this way, but it seems that it links to the url in its "website" attribute and not to the url in its "url" attribute, which would seem to be where one was intended to put the url of the link. The tag also reports as an error: "External link in |website", which seems to be the whole purpose of a web citation, so I think that the design of this part of Wikipedia markup needs looking at, to make it clearer what the tag is for and how it ought to be used. I note that the first footnote in the article (to http://www.nichd.nih.gov) also reports the same error. If you understand these issues, perhaps you would like to explain.
Hedles (talk) 11:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Endometriosis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Regarding edits like this and this by Barbara (WVS), it would be better to replace the sources with updated and non-primary references instead of leaving the content unsourced. This is per the WP:Preserve policy. Also, per WP:MEDDATE, a source that is not within the five-year window of freshness does not automatically mean that the source is outdated. If research on the matter is the same, then a 2010 reference is not outdated. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
This source puts the global number effected at 10.8 million.[4] 10% of reproductive age women would be a much larger number (likely 200 million). Thus we provide both. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi! We are a group of medical students from Queen's University. We are working to improve this article over the next month and will be posting our planned changes on this talk page. We look forward to working with the existing Wikipedia medical editing community to improve this article and share evidence. We welcome feedback and suggestions as we learn to edit. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erichmond3 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
This section was deleted by User:Doc James as "Too tangential." Both sources are stories of misdiagnosis of endometriosis, which is apparently rather common. Both readings seem appropriate for medical personal and patients who might view our article. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello, we are a group of medical students editing this page as part of our class assignment. We have compiled a list of suggestions to improve this article and would appreciate community feedback before we proceed with these edits. Here is a list of our suggestions:
We propose the following changes for these indicated sections:
1. Signs and Symptoms
a. We propose to update citations in the sentence below in the #Other section. The current citation for symptoms of diarrhea and constipation is a cohort study published in 2010. This source does not meet Wikipedia’s reliable medical sources criteria. The citation for chronic fatigue is also missing so we are adding a citation for this evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Erichmond3/sandbox
b. We propose to remove the pelvic pain paragraph from #Other and edit the #Pelvic pain section to include new information. You can view the new edits in the following sandbox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Erichmond3/sandbox To remove: “In addition to pain during menstruation, the pain of endometriosis can occur at other times of the month. There can be a pain with ovulation, pain associated with adhesions, pain caused by inflammation in the pelvic cavity, pain during bowel movements and urination, during general bodily movement like exercise, pain from standing or walking, and pain with intercourse. The most severe pain is typically associated with menstruation. Pain can also start a week before a menstrual period, during and even a week after a menstrual period, or it can be constant. The pain can be debilitating and the emotional stress can take a toll.[20]”
The last three sentences of the removed paragraph will be added on to the first paragraph under #Pelvic pain.
2. Pathophysiology
a. We propose to add 2 subsections under the “Pathophysiology” section to address the role of oxidative stress in the development of endometriotic lesions
b. The first section would be entitled “Oxidative Stress: Iron Overload”
c. Under “Oxidative Stress: Iron Overload”, the following paragraph will be added: "Influx of Iron is associated with the local destruction of the peritoneal mesothelium, leading to the adhesion of ectopic endometrial cells[1]. Peritoneal iron overload might be due to the destruction of erythrocytes, which contain the iron-binding protein hemoglobin, or a deficiency in the peritoneal iron metabolism system.[1]"
d. the second section will be entitled “Oxidative Stress: Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS)”
e. under “Oxidative Stress: Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS)”, the following paragraph will be added: "Oxidative stress activity and reactive oxygen species (such as superoxide anions and peroxide levels) are high in endometriosis and are known to damage tissue and induce proliferation[1]. There are several pathways for oxidative stress to induce proliferation of endometriotic lesions such as the mitogen activated protein (MAP) kinase and extracellular signal-related kinase (ERK) pathway. Activation of both pathways lead to increased levels of c-Fos and c-Jun, proto-oncogenes associated with high-grade lesions.[1]"
Reference 1: Oxidative Stress and Endometriosis: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Oxid Med Cell Longev. 2017;2017:7265238. doi: 10.1155/2017/7265238. Epub 2017 Sep 19.
f. the changes can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AquilaAking
3. Diagnosis
a. We propose to make the following changes to the structure of the article; order of headings Endometriosis#Diagnosis, such this it goes “Laparoscopy” then “Vaginal ultrasound”.
b. We propose to insert the following content into the Endometriosis#Laparoscopy subsection: “Laparoscopy is also the only currently accepted way to determine the extent and severity of endometriosis.” [1]
c. We propose to add a subsection under Endometriosis#Diagnosis called Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). Our proposed changes and paragraph can be found in the following sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sab.lawal/sandbox
::Comments in your sandbox. Thanks!JenOttawa (talk) 15:29, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
4. Genetics
a. We want to provide a clear concise introduction sentence to the section
b. We propose to insert a table summarizing the main gene loci that are relevant to a predisposition of endometriosis. By including a table of the loci we also want to include details regarding the gene product of the particular loci. This will help provide a better foundation for readers to understand what particular cascades may be involved, as well as serves as a platform of other topics to look into for greater detail if that is what they desire.
c. Proposed changes can be found in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Adicarlo1996/sandbox
5. Epidemiology
a. We propose adding in a sentence on the prevalence of endometriosis and how this varies by age groups. Currently, the wording is unclear and the prevalence quoted does not agree with the existing literature. By using a recent source that surveys the prevalence rates across studies of endometriosis, we will provide a more accurate estimate of how many women are affected worldwide. i. We propose removing: “One estimate is that 10.8 million people are affected globally as of 2015. Other sources estimate about 6-10% of women are affected.”
ii. We propose adding: “Establishing a prevalence for endometriosis has been made challenging because definitive diagnosis requires surgical visualization of the affected area [1]. Criteria that are commonly used to establish a diagnosis include pelvic pain, infertility, surgical assessment, and in some cases, magnetic resonance imaging. Altogether, these studies suggest that endometriosis affects approximately 11% of women in the general population [1].”
iii. Ref: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30017581
b. We also propose including a brief description of endometriosis recurrence rates. This information is currently missing from the epidemiology section and could describe how many individuals experience endometriosis recurrence after treatment. There are also known factors that affect the rate of recurrence which could be commented on.
i. We propose adding: “The rate of recurrence of endometriosis is estimated to be 56% over a 5-year period [1]. The rate of recurrence has been shown to increase with time from surgery and is not associated with the stage of the disease, initial site, surgical method used, or post-surgical treatment [1].”
ii. Ref: https://www.rbmojournal.com/article/S1472-6483(17)30571-0/fulltext
c. Proposed changes can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DanJosephJ/sandbox
6. Social and Cultural Aspects:
a. We propose to expand on the economic burden of endometriosis. Currently the analysis is superficial and only covers loss of work days and does not analyze the many other direct and indirect costs of the chronic condition.
i. Delete the current paragraph on “The Economic burdens of Endometriosis”
ii. Add: “The economic burden of Endometriosis is widespread and multifaceted. Endometriosis is a chronic disease that has direct and indirect costs which include loss of work days, direct costs of treatment, symptom management, and treatment of other associated conditions such as depression or chronic pain. (1). One factor which seems to be associated with especially high costs is the delay between onset of symptoms and diagnosis. Costs vary greatly between countries. (2)” 1: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17056043 2: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e5a9/e0134a372beb0620e742b7ec12f85751dc2b.pdf
b. We also propose creating a section outlining organizations focused on advocacy for endometriosis. These include national resouces, fundraising initiatives, and research efforts.
i. “Organizations such as the Endometriosis Foundation of America (2), Endometriosis Research Center (3), and the Endometriosis Network Canada (1) are just a few of the many organizations worldwide which are advocates of Endometriosis. These organizations offer patient resources, fundraising, awareness and advocacy, and research efforts for Endometriosis 1: http://www.endometriosisnetwork.ca/ 2: https://www.endofound.org/ 3: https://www.endocenter.org/
c. We also propose to include public advocates and famous celebrities as many individuals use their experience to raise awareness for the condition.
i. “There are also many public figures who speak out about their experience with Endometriosis. Notable people include Whoopi Goldberg (4), Mel Greigs (5), and Julianne Hough. (6)” https://www.endofound.org/blossom-ball-2009-whoopi-goldberg https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/radio-presenter-mel-greigs-shocking-photo-shows-reality-of-living-with-endometriosis/news-story/4638a8c8899928d4ebb8dfd82ef820a7 https://www.today.com/health/julianne-hough-endometriosis-i-just-thought-it-was-normal-t116059
Our proposed changes can be found at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LordHaveMRSA/sandbox
AquilaAking (talk) 07:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Doc James I am thinking that we could make for exemple stress in that chapter instead of stating it in signs and symptoms (see ref) thanksWalidou47 (talk) 08:45, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
I do not undestand if there is a reason to use a Russian translation.
The ref name="John2013"> at Endometriosis#Surgery is to a Russian translation while the PMID and DOI are to the English versions. If there is not a reason for this then
<ref name="John2013">((cite journal | vauthors = Johnson NP, Hummelshoj L | title = Consensus on current management of endometriosis | journal = Human Reproduction | volume = 28 | issue = 6 | pages = 1552–68 | date = June 2013 | pmid = 23528916 | doi = 10.1093/humrep/det050 | url = http://reproduct-endo.com/article/download/30268/26983 | doi-access = free ))</ref>
which links to a Russian translation -- Google Translate of the first paragraph looks like a direct translation -- at
http://reproduct-endo.com/article/download/30268/26983
needs to be replaced with
<ref name="John2013">((cite journal |vauthors=Johnson NP, Hummelshoj L |title=Consensus on current management of endometriosis |journal=Hum. Reprod. |volume=28 |issue=6 |pages=1552–68 |date=June 2013 |pmid=23528916 |doi=10.1093/humrep/det050 |url=))</ref>[1]
Please correct it or let me know it is OK to correct it. Memdmarti (talk) 02:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
References
Literally, the Latin root of misogyny invokes biologically female reproductive organs. While the section of famous people who have struggled with endometriosis helps provide balance, a lot more needs to be done address the latent bias in both how endometriosis has been addressed in the past and how it’s still misunderstood today. Felis Bieti (talk) 02:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Please provide specific examples of what text needs to be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moribundum (talk • contribs) 18:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
I need to speak to someone as soon as possible 174.242.206.28 (talk) 03:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
In the section "Magnetic resonance imaging", the phrase "although it can be used to detect the most common form of endometriosis with a sufficient accuracy" is unclear. "Although it can accurately detect .." or "although sometimes it can accurately detect ..."- which is it?71.230.16.111 (talk) 07:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)