How to bridge the gap between evidence-based and clinical management of endometriosis

• The limitations of EBM and guidelines to take dichotomous decisions, based on multiple variables, are discussed for endometriosis management. • It is suggested to document for clinical decisions on diagnosis, treatment and surgery the collective experience of clinicians, permitting the calculation of the probability and its distribution of the decisions experienced clinicians would make. The collective experience could subsequently be used to update EBM and guidelines. Evidence-based medicine (EBM) rightly intends to use the best available evidence for clinical decisions. The pyramid of evidence reflects the absence of allocation, user, or judgment bias, with on top double-blind, randomised, controlled trials (RCTs) or their meta-analyses having sufficient statistical power. Unfortunately, perfect trials are rare, and the quality of evidence has to be graded. Although important for drug development, the clinical impact of EBM has remained limited in areas such as surgery and endometriosis. The results are limited to the group investigated, and rare events, surgery complications or multimorbidity often require prohibitive large numbers. There is a mismatch between multifactorial clinical and surgical decisions and mono-factorial RCTs. The pitfalls of frequentist statistical inference and cognitive biases are often ignored, and observational medicine, clinical experience and surgical skills are poorly integrated. The EBM guidelines could be updated and expanded with data from collective clinical experience, including rare events, Black Swans, and surgical skills. Clinicians should document their sequential decisions regarding diagnosis, therapy, and surgery, including what should not be done. The agreement between clinicians will be reflected in the range of probabilities, which can then be used to update EBM data. These updated EBM guidelines cover all decisions the clinician has to make, many without trial evidence. These guidelines might vary according to local situations and should be updated when new data become available from trials, documented collective experience, including surgical skills, or models derived from the analysis of observational data.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Endometriosis and Uterine Disorders
Published
2025-05-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeud.2025.100123
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Endometriosis Research and Treatment
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.70
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

How to bridge the gap between evidence-based and clinical management of endometriosis

Anastasia Ussia, Sun‐Wei Guo, Arnaud Wattiez, Charles E. Miller et al.
1 citations
Journal of Endometriosis and Uterine Disorders
Endometriosis Research and Treatment
1.70
article

How to bridge the gap between evidence-based and clinical management of endometriosis

Anastasia Ussia, Sun‐Wei Guo, Arnaud Wattiez, Charles E. Miller, Emmanuel Lesaffre, L.V. Adamyan, Philippe R. Koninckx
article en
1 citations

Abstract

• The limitations of EBM and guidelines to take dichotomous decisions, based on multiple variables, are discussed for endometriosis management. • It is suggested to document for clinical decisions on diagnosis, treatment and surgery the collective experience of clinicians, permitting the calculation of the probability and its distribution of the decisions experienced clinicians would make. The collective experience could subsequently be used to update EBM and guidelines. Evidence-based medicine (EBM) rightly intends to use the best available evidence for clinical decisions. The pyramid of evidence reflects the absence of allocation, user, or judgment bias, with on top double-blind, randomised, controlled trials (RCTs) or their meta-analyses having sufficient statistical power. Unfortunately, perfect trials are rare, and the quality of evidence has to be graded. Although important for drug development, the clinical impact of EBM has remained limited in areas such as surgery and endometriosis. The results are limited to the group investigated, and rare events, surgery complications or multimorbidity often require prohibitive large numbers. There is a mismatch between multifactorial clinical and surgical decisions and mono-factorial RCTs. The pitfalls of frequentist statistical inference and cognitive biases are often ignored, and observational medicine, clinical experience and surgical skills are poorly integrated. The EBM guidelines could be updated and expanded with data from collective clinical experience, including rare events, Black Swans, and surgical skills. Clinicians should document their sequential decisions regarding diagnosis, therapy, and surgery, including what should not be done. The agreement between clinicians will be reflected in the range of probabilities, which can then be used to update EBM data. These updated EBM guidelines cover all decisions the clinician has to make, many without trial evidence. These guidelines might vary according to local situations and should be updated when new data become available from trials, documented collective experience, including surgical skills, or models derived from the analysis of observational data.

Journal of Endometriosis and Uterine DisordersVol. 11
Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry (RU), Stellenbosch University (ZA), Latifa Hospital (AE), Advocate Lutheran General Hospital (US), Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation (RU), Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital of Fudan University (CN), Catholic University of America (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 16%
Endometriosis Research and Treatment
1.70
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.