Abstract
Introduction
The description of a salivary miRNA signature for endometriosis has led to the development of a non-invasive diagnostic test. Current healthcare provider practices regarding the test remain uncaptured. The application of this test in practice was examined in a web-based survey, with the aim to provide their opinions on it.
Methods
We conducted an open web-based survey study between November 2023 and January 2024. Members of the German society of gynecologic endoscopy (Arbeitsgemeinschaft gynäkologische Endoskopie, AGE), society of endometriosis (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Endometriose, AGEM), and the endometriosis research foundation (Stiftung Endometriose Forschung, SEF) were contacted per e-mail twice. Participants’ data were anonymized. Differences in responses based on self-reported expertise in the field (basic knowledge, specialized knowledge, expert) were assessed using the χ2-test or Fisher’s exact test. Statistical significance was set as p < 0.05.
Results
In total 141 of 190 respondents completely responded to the survey (> 75% of the questions of the survey). Twenty-one physicians reported having experience with the test, while most participants had at least specialized knowledge on the field (112/141). In terms of specific questions, more than 90% found the costs high; almost 85% did not believe that the test replaces standard diagnostic tools (histology, clinical examination, and sonography). Eighty-six providers supported the use of the test in adolescents. Gynecologists with basic knowledge had a more positive attitude compared with more experienced ones in terms of usefulness (Fisher’s exact test, p < 0.001). Significant differences were demonstrated between expertise groups regarding (not only) applicability in adolescents (Fisher’s exact test, p = 0.004), and using the test for screening purposes (χ2-test, p = 0.002).
Discussion
Despite the promising benefits of a salivary test for endometriosis, German healthcare providers would not change current practices. Nevertheless, less experienced colleagues were more positive towards the test.
Supplementary Information
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00404-024-07601-3.
Keywords: Endometriosis, Salivary test, miRNA, Non-invasive diagnosis
What does this study add to the clinical work
| A small number of survey participants (14.8%) reported having experience with the salivary test. German healthcare providers would most probably not change current clinical practice, even though the test could be used in specific circumstances (e.g. adolescents). This opinion was more common among less experienced providers compared to more experience ones. |
Introduction
Endometriosis is estimated to affect as many as 10% of female-born people, leading to almost 190 million cases worldwide [1, 2]. Individuals with the disorder face a multifaced detrimental health burden, not only because of consecutive interventions, for example multiple surgeries or reproductive technologies, but also non-reproductive sequelae, such as chronic pain, poorer mental health and quality of life, cardiovascular disease, and cancer compared with the general population [3]. This is reflected not only on a personal level, but also on a societal level with significant consequences for healthcare systems as well [4, 5]. According to an analysis by Simoens and colleagues, the annual costs for women with the disease reached €9579 (95% confidence interval €8559 to €10,599) on average, approximately those of patients with diabetes or Crohn’s disease [6].
One of the severe challenges in endometriosis, recognized in the 2023 Endometriosis Fact Sheet by the world health organization (WHO), pertains to its diagnosis, specifically the diagnostic delay between symptoms and treatment onset [7, 8]. Diagnosis of the disease should be based on history taking, signs of disease, clinical examination, and imaging studies (ultrasound and/or magnetic resonance imaging), while the previous gold standard of laparoscopy is no longer required in all cases, as noted in national and international guidelines [9, 10]. Recently, advances in precision medicine, artificial intelligence, and omics-based technologies have led to the identification of disease-specific biomarkers in blood, eutopic endometrium and saliva, with some currently undergoing investigation in multicenter trials [11]. Even though these markers might, in theory, offer a non-invasive, specific, and sensitive diagnostic method, current evidence does not support their use [12].
Among these biomarkers, special interest has been focused on microRNA (miRNAs). These molecules constitute non-coding RNAs of 21–25 nucleotides that regulate gene expression by binding to their complementary messenger RNA (mRNA) [13]. In a literature review between 2000 and 2020, 18 studies were identified evaluating miRNA expression levels in patients with endometriosis and controls. According to the study, 63 miRNAs were differentially expressed in the blood of women with the disease, of which only 14 yielded replicable findings in other studies. Of note, in some studies panels of miRNAs provided diagnostic accuracy measures comparable to or better than those of laparoscopy, which further explains the great interest surrounding miRNAs in the diagnosis of endometriosis [14].
In a recent study (ENDO-miRNA) by Bendifallah et al. salivary miRNAs were prospectively assessed in terms of diagnostic accuracy in 200 patients presenting with chronic pelvic pain with or without endometriosis. After genome-wide miRNA expression profiling and bioinformatic analysis of all samples, the authors were able to provide a signature of 109 distinct miRNAs for endometriosis. In terms of diagnostic accuracy, this reached 96.7%, 100%, and 98.3% for sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC), respectively [15]. The results of this analysis are currently being validated in a multicenter validation study in France (target population 1000 individuals). In the most recent interim analysis of 200 individuals, the authors could duplicate the diagnostic accuracy measures of the previous study, namely sensitivity 96.2%, specificity 95.1%, positive predictive value (PPV) 95.1%, negative predictive value (NPV), and AUC of 0.96 [16]. Given these significant results, the company Ziwig introduced a promising, efficient, non-invasive salivary test (Endotest®) to the market in 2022 [17, 18]. The test quickly gained interest in public. Scientific associations discussed on possible restrictions connected to use [19, 20].
To this day, no survey on healthcare providers has been conducted, assessing their views and experiences on the salivary test. In this web-based questionnaire study we aimed to document the views, opinions, and experiences of German gynecology healthcare providers on the salivary test for endometriosis.
Materials and methods
This was a web-based open cross-sectional survey conducted between November 2023 and January 2024. The survey was conducted using the online software LimeSurvey (https://www.limesurvey.org/, ID: 817,746). All responses were anonymized. Moreover, we used an integrated cookie method provided by the software to prevent repeated participation in the survey. The survey comprised of 18 questions (see Supplementary File 1) in the German language. The first part was related to baseline information of the participants (‘Allgemeine Informationen’, see Supplementary File 1), while the second part consisted of questions specific to the salivary test (‘Fragen zum Speicheltest’, see Supplementary File 1).
Registered members of the German society of endometriosis (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Endometriose, AGEM), the endometriosis research foundation (Stiftung Endometriose Forschung, SEF), and the German society of gynecologic endoscopy (Arbeitsgemeinschaft gynäkologische Endoskopie, AGE)-in this case all emails registered to the newsletter of the society-, were contacted through each society per email twice (November and December 2023). The email included a link to the online survey. Furthermore, the survey was advertised during the 15th Congress of Endometriosis for German speaking countries (November 23–25, 2023, in Saarbrücken, Germany).
As far as the number of members is concerned, there are currently 170 AGEM members, 116 SEF members, and 2370 AGE members-approximately 5,000 email addresses are registered to the newsletter. Due to significant overlap of members between all three societies, along with inactive memberships (e.g. colleagues no longer practicing in Germany), an exact estimation of the recipients was not possible.
Ethics and reporting guidelines
The manuscript abides by the Consensus-Based Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies (CROSS) Guidelines for reporting of survey studies, as suggested by the equator network (see Supplementary Table 1) [21]. Furthermore, official approval was provided by the bioethics committee of the medical association of Saarland (Registration number 213/23).
Statistical analysis
Data were extracted in a Microsoft Excel (Version 16.82) file for further analysis. Descriptive statistics in the form of absolute counts (percentage) were calculated for every survey item.
Regarding calculation of response rate, this was based on the following principle, given that the exact calculation of recipients was not possible (see above). A total of 190 respondents accessed and completed questions of the survey. From them, 49 (25.8%) responded to no question pertaining to the salivary test (second part of the survey, see above) (incomplete responders), while the rest (74.2%) responded to at least 75% of the survey items (complete response rate).
Group differences, based on self-reported experience level in the field of endometriosis, were examined using the chi-squared test or Fisher’s exact test in case where values for a specific group were < 5. Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05. We undertook no measures for missing data, as this did not exceed 5%. The statistical program Jamovi (2.3.21.0) was used for the analysis.
Results
General characteristics of the participants along with non-responses are summarized in Table 1, while Table 2 summarizes the responses (along with non-responses) of participants to questions pertaining to salivary test, itself.
Table 1.
General characteristics of the survey participants
| Variable |
N = 141 Count (%) |
|---|---|
| Work position | |
| Resident (Arzt/ Ärtzin in Weiterbildung) | 9 (6.4%) |
| Specialist (Facharzt/ärztin) | 9 (6.4%) |
| Attending physician (Oberarzt/ärztin) | 72 (51.1%) |
| Chief physician (Chefarzt/ärztin) | 30 (21.3%) |
| Private practice | 20 (14.2%) |
| No response | 1 (0.7%) |
| Work experience (years) | |
| 0–5 years | 7 (5.0%) |
| 5–10 years | 19 (13.5%) |
| 10–15 years | 35 (24.8%) |
| > 15 years | 80 (56.7%) |
| No response | – |
| Work environment | |
| Hospital (endometriosis certified facility) | 31 (22.0%) |
| Hospital (not certified endometriosis facility) | 60 (42.6%) |
| University hospital | 29 (20.6%) |
| Practice | 17 (12.1%) |
| No active clinical duty (e.g. maternity leave, retirement, research rotation) | 4 (2.8%) |
| No response | – |
| Experience in the field of endometriosis (self-reported) | |
| Basic knowledge | 29 (20.6%) |
| Specialized knowledge | 48 (34.0%) |
| Expert | 64 (45.4%) |
| No response | - |
| Number of tests you have conducted | |
| 0 | 118 (83.7%) |
| Less than 5 | 16 (11.3%) |
| 5–25 | 5 (3.5%) |
| No response | 2 (1.4%) |
Table 2.
Responses to specific questions of the survey pertaining to the salivary test.
| Variable | N = 141 Count (%) |
|---|---|
| How do you find the costs (about 800 Euros) of salivary test? | |
| Affordable | 1 (0.7%) |
| Cost-neutral | 4 (2.8%) |
| Expensive | 46 (32.6%) |
| Too expensive | 89 (63.1%) |
| No response | 1 (0.7%) |
| The costs of the test were covered | |
| By the patients themselves | 17 (12.1%) |
| By the insurance provider (after application) | 9 (6.4%) |
| No response | 115 (81.6%) |
| The salivary test replaces the | |
| Histological confirmation | 17 (12.1%) |
| Sonography | 2 (1.4%) |
| Clinical examination | 3 (2.1%) |
| None of the options mentioned above | 119 (84.4%) |
| In your opinion, how do you find the test as a new diagnostic tool? | |
| Indispensable | 3 (2.1%) |
| A meaningful addition | 30 (21.3%) |
| Usable in specific instances | 70 (49.6%) |
| Dispensable | 36 (25.5%) |
| No response | 2 (1.4%) |
| In your opinion, can the salivary test be applied as a screening method for endometriosis? | |
| Yes | 41 (29.1%) |
| No | 97 (68.8%) |
| No response | 3 (2.1%) |
| In your opinion, can the saliva test be used to confirm the diagnosis of endometriosis? | |
| Yes | 58 (41.1%) |
| No | 82 (58.2%) |
| No response | 1 (0.7%) |
| Would you conduct the test in an adolescent patient? | |
| Yes | 86 (61.0%) |
| No | 54 (38.3%) |
| No response | 1 (0.7%) |
| If not, why not? | |
| Lack of evidence and validation for individuals under 18 years of age | 34 (24.1%) |
| Risk of overdiagnosis | 25 (17.7%) |
| Lack of interpretability of the test result | 33 (23.4%) |
| I would conduct the test | |
| In every patient with a suspicion of endometriosis | 18 (12.8%) |
| Only if sonography or MRI are negative for endometriosis | 68 (48.2%) |
| Not at all | 54 (38.3%) |
| No response | 1 (0.7%) |
| When would you conduct the test? | |
| Initially for diagnostic confirmation | 40 (28.4%) |
| Before a laparoscopy | 35 (24.8%) |
| Before initiating medical therapy | 33 (23.4%) |
| When there is suspicion of an endometriosis recurrence | 35 (24.8%) |
| Before initiating fertility treatment | 39 (27.7%) |
| A patient with dysmenorrhea comes to you with a positive test result. What is your approach? | |
| Initiation of medical therapy (e.g. dienogest 2 mg) | 76 (53.9%) |
| Conducting an MRI of the pelvis | 2 (1.4%) |
| In any case, laparoscopic surgery | 11 (7.8%) |
| Laparoscopy in case of pronounced symptoms | 48 (34.0%) |
| No response | 4 (2.8%) |
| A patient with endometriosis symptoms (e.g., dysmenorrhea) and a normal ultrasound result comes to you with a negative saliva test result. What is your approach? | |
| Initiation of medical therapy (e.g. dienogest 2 mg) | 57 (40.4%) |
| Conducting an MRI of the pelvis | 12 (8.5%) |
| In any case, laparoscopic surgery | 4 (2.8%) |
| Laparoscopy in case of pronounced symptoms | 64 (45.4%) |
| No response | 4 (2.8%) |
| In your opinion, how satisfied are the patients with the test? | |
| Not satisfied at all | 1 (0.7%) |
| Not satisfied | 2 (1.4%) |
| Neutral | 13 (9.2%) |
| Satisfied | 7 (5.0%) |
| Very satisfied | 5 (3.5%) |
| No information provided, as I haven't had any experience with the test so far | 110 (78.0%) |
| No responses | 3 (2.1%) |
MRI magnetic resonance imaging
Our cohort comprised primarily of gynecologists who have completed specialty training (78.8%; working as specialist, attending, chief positions), with at least 5 years working experience (95%), reporting at least specialized knowledge on the field of endometriosis (79.4%). A total of 21 physicians (14.8%) reported having conducted the salivary test.
In terms of usability, 30 physicians considered the test a meaningful addition to clinical routine (21.3%), while 70 (49.6%) would use it only under specific circumstances. We investigated this aspect further and demonstrated that 68 (48.2%) participants would consider the test in case imaging findings turned out negative. Despite this fact, 119 (84.4%) did not believe, that the test replaces any of the standard diagnostic tools of endometriosis (histology, ultrasound, clinical examination). Another aspect raised by the survey, was the opinions on costs. Almost 64% of participants considered the costs of the test extremely high. Regarding cost coverage, 9 (6.4%) physicians reported coverage by the insurance provider after proper application, while 17 (12.1%) providers reported self-coverage of the costs by the patients.
In terms of the applying of the test in the adolescent population, 86 participants (61%) agreed with its usage. Among those disagreeing with the use of the test, 34 based their choice, due to lack of evidence/validation for individuals under 18 years of age, 33 considered a lack of interpretability of the test results, while 25 supported that the test might lead to overdiagnosis.
Two of the questions in our survey were clinical scenarios which had to do with patients presenting with symptoms suggestive of endometriosis and a) a positive test result, and b) negative test with a negative ultrasonography for endometriosis. In the first scenario, most clinicians [76 (53.9%)] would initiate medical therapy for endometriosis, while in the second, most participants would perform a laparoscopy in case of pronounced symptoms [64 (45.4%)] or initiate medical therapy [57 (40.4%)].
Table 3 demonstrates differences in the responses of participants based on reported expertise level on endometriosis. Statistically significant differences were demonstrated in questions including but not limited to the use of the test in adolescents (Fisher’s exact test, p = 0.004), applicability of the test as a screening tool (χ2-test, p = 0.002), and its costs (Fisher’s test, p = 0.037).
Table 3.
Comparison of responses among participants with different expertise level on endometriosis.
| Basic knowledge n = 29 (20.6%) |
Specialized knowledge n = 48 (34.0%) |
Expert n = 64 (45.4%) |
p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| How do you find the costs (about 800 Euros) of salivary test? | 0.0371 | |||
| Affordable | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (2.1%) | 0 (0.0%) | |
| Cost-neutral | 1 (3.4%) | 2 (4.2%) | 1 (1.6%) | |
| Expensive | 16 (55.2%) | 13 (27.1%) | 17 (27.0%) | |
| Too expensive | 12 (41.4%) | 32 (66.7%) | 45 (71.4%) | |
| The salivary test replaces the | ||||
| Histological confirmation (yes/no) | 4 (13.8%) | 8 (16.7%) | 5 (7.8%) | 0.3861 |
| Sonography (yes/no) | 0 (0%) | 1 (2.1%) | 1 (1.6%) | 1.0001 |
| Clinical examination (yes/no) | 0 (0%) | 2 (4.2%) | 1 (1.6%) | 0.5941 |
| None of the options mentioned above (yes/no) | 24 (82.8%) | 39 (81.3%) | 56 (87.5%) | 0.6412 |
| In your opinion, how do you find the test as a new diagnostic tool? | < 0.0011 | |||
| Indispensable | 0 (0%) | 2 (4.3%) | 1 (1.6%) | |
| A meaningful addition | 14 (48.3%) | 7 (14.9%) | 9 (14.3%) | |
| Usable in specific instances | 14 (48.3%) | 29 (61.7%) | 27 (42.9%) | |
| Dispensable | 1 (3.4%) | 9 (19.1%) | 26 (41.3%) | |
| In your opinion, can the salivary test be applied as a screening method for endometriosis? | 0.0022 | |||
| Yes | 16 (57.1%) | 11 (23.4%) | 14 (22.2%) | |
| No | 12 (42.9%) | 36 (76.6%) | 49 (77.8%) | |
| Would you conduct the test in an adolescent patient? | 0.0041 | |||
| Yes | 25 (86.2%) | 29 (60.4%) | 32 (50.8%) | |
| No | 4 (13.8%) | 19 (39.6%) | 31 (49.2%) | |
| I would conduct the test | < 0.0011 | |||
| In every patient with a suspicion of endometriosis | 8 (27.6%) | 5 (10.4%) | 5 (7.9%) | |
| Only if sonography or MRI are negative for endometriosis | 17 (58.6%) | 29 (60.4%) | 22 (34.9%) | |
| Not at all | 4 (13.8%) | 14 (29.2%) | 36 (57.1%) | |
| When would you conduct the test? | ||||
| Initially for diagnostic confirmation (yes/no) | 11 (37.9%) | 14 (29.2%) | 15 (23.4%) | 0.3522 |
| Before a laparoscopy (yes/no) | 13 (44.8%) | 13 (27.1%) | 9 (14.1%) | 0.0062 |
| Before initiating medical therapy (yes/no) | 9 (31.0%) | 12 (25.0%) | 12 (18.8%) | 0.4102 |
| When there is suspicion of an endometriosis recurrence (yes/no) | 13 (44.8%) | 14 (29.2%) | 8 (12.5%) | 0.0032 |
| Before initiating fertility treatment (yes/no) | 10 (34.5%) | 19 (39.6%) | 10 (15.6%) | 0.0132 |
| A patient with dysmenorrhea comes to you with a positive test result. What is your approach? | 0.2341 | |||
| Initiation of medical therapy (e.g. dienogest 2 mg) | 12 (41.4%) | 25 (54.3%) | 39 (62.9%) | |
| Conducting an MRI of the pelvis | 1 (3.4%) | 1 (2.2%) | 0 (0.0%) | |
| In any case, laparoscopic surgery | 3 (10.3%) | 2 (4.3%) | 6 (9.7%) | |
| Laparoscopy in case of pronounced symptoms | 13 (44.8%) | 18 (39.1%) | 17 (27.4%) | |
| A patient with endometriosis symptoms (e.g., dysmenorrhea) and a normal ultrasound result comes to you with a negative saliva test result. What is your approach? | < 0.0011 | |||
| Initiation of medical therapy (e.g. dienogest 2 mg) | 5 (17.2%) | 15 (32.6%) | 37 (59.7%) | |
| Conducting an MRI of the pelvis | 6 (20.7%) | 5 (10.9%) | 1 (1.6%) | |
| In any case, laparoscopic surgery | 1 (3.4%) | 1 (2.2%) | 2 (3.2%) | |
| Laparoscopy in case of pronounced symptoms | 17 (58.6%) | 25 (54.3%) | 22 (35.5%) | |
Responders with missing responses (see Table 2) were excluded from the statistical test.
Statistically significant results are demonstrated as bold numbers
MRI magnetic resonance imaging
1p-values represent those of Fisher’s exact test
2p-values represent those of the χ2-test
Discussion
Our study demonstrated frontiers and barriers of gynecology providers on the salivary test for endometriosis. Most physicians (85%) agreed that the test cannot replace the value of already established tools, namely histological examination (as part of laparoscopy), clinical examination, and ultrasound. Another important aspect raised by the survey were the costs of the test, which were considered too high by most participants. Moreover, the test should not be considered a screening tool of asymptomatic patients according to almost 70% of the respondents. Furthermore, 61% of physicians responded positively to the question of whether they would conduct the test in adolescents. We were able to demonstrate statistically significant differences in the responses based on self-reported level of experience in the field. In summary, these results suggest that providers with basic knowledge, to some extent younger colleagues, are more in favor of the test compared with providers with specialized knowledge or experts of the field. Finally, most physicians agreed that they would initiate medical treatment in case of symptoms suggestive of endometriosis, independent of the result of the test.
One of the major issues addressed by our study was that of the cost of the test. Most healthcare providers assessed the costs of the salivary test as high. The issue of cost automatically raises questions regarding the ‘optimal’ population, for which the test should be used without imposing significant costs to the patients and healthcare system (cost effectiveness). In an analysis based on the French healthcare system, routine care was compared with the following strategies: 1) all patients receive the test, 2) patients with negative sonography (for endometrioma) receive the test, 3) patients with a negative ultrasound and MRI examination receive the test. At a price of €750, the costs per accurately diagnosed case were €1542 (routine care), €990 (strategy 1), €919 (strategy 2) and €1000 (strategy 3). On the contrary, a lower price per test (e.g. €500) rendered routine care the most cost-effective [22]. Despite this perspective, real-world data on the economic burden of the test are lacking. Further considering that in some countries, like Germany, the cost is not covered by the insurance companies leaves open questions, which need to be addressed in the future.
Another important topic requiring attention is the applicability of the test in different subpopulations based on scientific evidence. First, it has been demonstrated that miRNAomes are characterized by significant differences in different populations and ethnicities [23, 24]. This aspect has not been addressed in the analyses by Bendifallah et al., which did not provide any evidence on the ethnicity of the patients tested [15, 16]. To what extent, the miRNA signature applies to populations outside of France remains to be investigated [20]. Moreover, the necessity of external validation cannot be more stressed, especially when it comes to specific phenotypes such as endometriosis-associated infertility, which was recently addressed in a subanalysis of the original population of the study [25]. Advocating optimal diagnostic accuracy without validation studies hampers the applicability of the evidence. Of note, the introduction of the test to the market was undertaken without published data of an external validation study, an interim analysis of which appeared recently [16].
Using the test for screening purposes (in asymptomatic patients) was discussed in our analysis. Based on the registered protocol of the ENDO-miRNA study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04728152), use of miRNA analysis was confined to symptomatic patients treated in tertiary centers while asymptomatic patients were not included [26]. Hence, applying the test in the general population needs to be avoided. Moreover, current evidence pertains to a prospective evaluation, which according to Saquib et al. differs from the gold standard to establish screening test efficacy, the randomized controlled trial [27]. Adding to this, Vercellini et al. challenged the necessity of a screening tool for endometriosis. The authors argued that even though early detection of the disease is of significance, there is no evidence supporting that early treatment hampers disease progression to the classical phenotype of the disease. Furthermore, the question of optimal management in case of a positive result also remains unanswered and controversial. On a theoretical level, even though some individuals would benefit from screening, others would face the consequences of overdiagnosis and treatment, along with an increased emotional burden [28].
Adolescent patients also received interest in the survey. In our study, 61% of the participants reported, that they would recommend the test to an adolescent girl. We speculate that this view is based on the necessity of a non-invasive diagnostic test for young adolescent patients. Brosens et al. provided evidence on adolescent disease progression and presence of severe disease at a young age necessitating timely diagnosis [29]. Despite these important observations, the studies published on the salivary test (to-date) excluded minors, thus, posing questions of external validity in this subpopulation. From an everyday perspective, clinical routine would most probably remain unchanged. Imaging (i.e. ultrasound and/or MRI) would still be required in cases of ‘supposed’ severe disease (e.g. exclusion of hydronephrosis); the test does not differentiate between superficial and deep endometriosis. In terms of therapy, adolescents would begin medical therapy (e.g., suppression of ovulation) along with analgesics, trying to avoid unnecessary surgery, which leaves the exact ‘value’ of the test unclear [30]. Further studies should provide more evidence on adolescents.
Our study presents strengths and limitations. To our knowledge, there has been no published survey for the application of the salivary test in the literature, which makes our findings novel. We have included responses from more than 100 healthcare workers involved in the treatment of patients with endometriosis (75% of the respondents reported being experts). This subgroup of physicians is more likely to have knowledge and experience with the test, making them the most appropriate survey group.
Regarding limitations, clinical and research experience with the salivary test in Germany was limited compared with France. Furthermore, size calculation of our sample entails restrictions. The primary reason for this was the great overlap of the members in the societies involved. Due to data protection rights, direct access to the mailing lists of the societies was not possible; something which would have allowed exact calculation of the response rate. Importantly, we have accounted for multiple participation as mentioned in the methods section. Web-based physician surveys generally demonstrate low response rates as explained by Cunningham et al. [31]. Nevertheless physicians constitute a much more homogenous group compared with the general population, given similar education, training, and behaviors [32].
Conclusion
Our open web-based survey study demonstrated that German gynecologists would not change their diagnostic and therapeutic practice based on current evidence on the salivary test. Nevertheless, the promising benefits of the test as a non-invasive diagnostic method finds given the great need of an accurate, not delayed diagnosis. Less experienced colleagues demonstrated different attitudes compared with more experience ones.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Ms. Sabine Oehlrich for the distribution of the survey in the members of AGEM and AGE per E-Mail.
Author contributions
All authors have read and approved the final manuscript. As far as author contributions were concerned, these included: MPN manuscript writing, data analysis, project management, MD, SB, MHS, EFS, BHH manuscript editing, GLO project development, and manuscript editing.
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
Declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare the following conflict of interest. MP Nigdelis received honoraria from RG Ärztefortbildung GmbH, as well as travel grants from Organon (Jersey City, USA) and Gedeon Richter (Budapest, Hungary). M Doerk received travel grants from travel grants from Gedeon Richter (Budapest, Hungary), Organon (Jersey City, USA) and Eisai (Tokyo, Japan) and is a member of DGGG (Berlin, Germany), AGE (Buchholz, Germany), Deutsche Gesellschaft für Senologie (Berlin, Germany). S Burghaus received honoraria from FOMF (Hofheim, Germany) and is a member of DGGG (Berlin, Germany), AGEM (Berlin, Germany), AGE (Buchholz, Germany), Stiftung Endometriose Forschung (Westerstede, Germany), AGUB (Taufkirchen, Germany), AGO (Taufkirchen, Germany), DKK. M Sillem is CEO and co-owner of EuroEndoCert Gmbh. He has received payments for presentations, advisory boards, and clinical studies from Bayer, Gedeon Richter, Hologic and EndoHealth. B Haj Hamoud received travel grants from Gedeon Richter, Astrazeneca (Cambridge, UK); Johnson & Johnson (New Brunswick, NJ, USA) and Storz (Tuttlingen, Germany) and is member of DGGG (Berlin, Germany), AGE (Buchholz, Germany) and Stiftung Endometriose Forschung (Westerstede, Germany). EF Solomayer is receiving: grants from the University of Saarland, Storz and Erbe; personal fees and other compensation from Roche (Basel, Switzerland), Pfizer (New York City, NY, USA), Celgene (Summit USA), Amgen (Thousand Oaks, CA, USA), and Astra Zeneca (Cambridge, UK); and other fees from Esai (Tokyo, Japan), Johnson & Johnson (New Brunswick, NJ, USA), Novartis (Basel, Switzerland), Tesaro (Waltham, MA, USA), Teva (Petach Tikwa, Israel), Medac GmbH (Wedel, Germany), MSD (Kenilworth, NJ, USA), Vifor (Sankt Gallen, Switzerland), Gedeon Richter (Budapest, Hungary), Takeda (Tokyo, Japan), and AGE (Buchholz, Germany); other potential conflicts: Clovis Oncology (Boulder, Colorado, USA), Genomic Health (Redwood City, California, USA), Jenapharm (Jena, Germany), Matramed (Bexbach, Germany), Mentor (Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA), Pharma Mar (Mardid, Spain), Samsung (Suwon, Southkorea), University of Saarland (Saarbrücken, Germany), DGGG (Berlin, Germany), AGO (Taufkirchen, Germany), AGUB (Taufkirchen, Germany), DGS (Berlin, Germany), DKG (Berlin, Germany), Saarländisches Tumorzentrum am UKS e.V., University of Saarland, Homburg, Germany), Saarländische Krebsgesellschaft (Saarbrücken, Germany), Stiftung Endometriose Forschung (Westerstede, Germany), ESGE (Leuven, Belgium), ETC (Saarbrücken, Germany), DEGUM (Berlin, Germany), Deutsche Kontinenzgesellschaft (Frankfurt, Germany), BLFG (Berlin, Germany), Medconcept (Neustadt an der Weinstraße, Germany), Thieme (Stuttgart, Germany). GL Olmes received grants from AstraZeneca (Cambridge, UK), Universitätsklinikum Freiburg (Germany) and RG Ärztefortbildung GmbH, membership of DGGG (Berlin, Germany), AGE (Buchholz, Germany), and AGEM (Berlin, Germany). The author reports scientific collaboration with Karl Stotz.
Footnotes
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
- 1.Zondervan KT, Becker CM, Koga K et al (2018) Endometriosis. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 10.1038/S41572-018-0008-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Burney RO, Giudice LC (2012) Pathogenesis and pathophysiology of endometriosis. Fertil Steril 98:511–519. 10.1016/J.FERTNSTERT.2012.06.029 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Missmer SA, Tu FF, Agarwal SK et al (2021) Impact of endometriosis on life-course potential: a narrative review. Int J Gen Med 14:9–25. 10.2147/IJGM.S261139 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Eisenberg VH, Decter DH, Chodick G et al (2022) Burden of endometriosis: infertility, comorbidities, and healthcare resource utilization. J Clin Med. 10.3390/JCM11041133 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Thiel PS, Bougie O, Pudwell J et al (2024) Endometriosis and mental health: a population-based cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 10.1016/J.AJOG.2024.01.023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Simoens S, Dunselman G, Dirksen C et al (2012) The burden of endometriosis: costs and quality of life of women with endometriosis and treated in referral centres. Hum Reprod 27:1292–1299. 10.1093/HUMREP/DES073 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Agarwal SK, Chapron C, Giudice LC et al (2019) Clinical diagnosis of endometriosis: a call to action. Am J Obstet Gynecol 220:354.e1-354.e12. 10.1016/J.AJOG.2018.12.039 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Endometriosis. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/endometriosis. Accessed 4 Feb 2024
- 9.Becker CM, Bokor A, Heikinheimo O et al (2022) ESHRE guideline: endometriosis. Hum Reprod Open. 10.1093/HROPEN/HOAC009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Burghaus S, Schäfer SD, Beckmann MW et al (2021) Diagnosis and Treatment of endometriosis. Guideline of the DGGG, SGGG and OEGGG (S2k Level, AWMF Registry Number 015/045, August 2020). Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 81:422–446. 10.1055/A-1380-3693 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Giudice LC, Oskotsky TT, Falako S et al (2023) Endometriosis in the era of precision medicine and impact on sexual and reproductive health across the lifespan and in diverse populations. FASEB J. 10.1096/FJ.202300907 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Nisenblat V, Prentice L, Bossuyt PMM et al (2016) Combination of the non-invasive tests for the diagnosis of endometriosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 10.1002/14651858.CD012281/MEDIA/CDSR/CD012281/IMAGE_N/NCD012281-TST-015.PNG [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Bendifallah S, Dabi Y, Suisse S et al (2022) (2022) MicroRNome analysis generates a blood-based signature for endometriosis. Sci Rep 12:1–13. 10.1038/s41598-022-07771-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Leonova A, Turpin VE, Agarwal SK et al (2021) A critical appraisal of the circulating levels of differentially expressed microRNA in endometriosis. Biol Reprod 105:1075–1085. 10.1093/BIOLRE/IOAB134 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Bendifallah S, Suisse S, Puchar A et al (2022) Salivary MicroRNA signature for diagnosis of endometriosis. J Clin Med 11:612. 10.3390/JCM11030612/S1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Bendifallah S, Dabi Y, Suisse S et al (2023) Validation of a salivary miRNA signature of endometriosis — interim data. NEJM Evidence. 10.1056/EVIDOA2200282 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Was leistet der Endometriose-Speicheltest? https://www.der-privatarzt.de//artikel/innovatives-verfahren-zur-endometriose-diagnostik-pag-06-23. Accessed 6 Feb 2024
- 18.Endometriosis – Ziwig. https://ziwig.com/en/endometriosis/. Accessed 6 Feb 2024
- 19.Vigano’ P, Vercellini P, Somigliana E, et al (2023) “I’m looking through you”: What consumers and manufacturers need to know about non-invasive diagnostic tests for endometriosis. J Endometr Uter Disord 2:100031. 10.1016/J.JEUD.2023.100031 [Google Scholar]
- 20.Scheck SM, Henry C, Bedford N et al (2023) Non-invasive tests for endometriosis are here; how reliable are they, and what should we do with the results? Aust New Zealand J Obstet Gynaecol. 10.1111/AJO.13765 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Sharma A, Minh Duc NT, Luu Lam Thang T et al (2021) A consensus-based checklist for reporting of survey studies (CROSS). J Gen Intern Med 36:3179–3187. 10.1007/S11606-021-06737-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Ferrier C, Bendifallah S, Suisse S et al (2023) Saliva microRNA signature to diagnose endometriosis: a cost-effectiveness evaluation of the endotest®. BJOG 130:396–406. 10.1111/1471-0528.17348 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Huang RS, Gamazon ER, Ziliak D et al (2011) Population differences in microRNA expression and biological implications. RNA Biol 8:692–701. 10.4161/RNA.8.4.16029 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Villegas-Mirón P, Gallego A, Bertranpetit J et al (2022) (2022) Signatures of genetic variation in human microRNAs point to processes of positive selection and population-specific disease risks. Hum Genet 141(10):1673–1693. 10.1007/S00439-021-02423-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Dabi Y, Suisse S, Puchar A et al (2023) Endometriosis-associated infertility diagnosis based on saliva microRNA signatures. Reprod Biomed Online 46:138–149. 10.1016/J.RBMO.2022.09.019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Evaluation of miRNAs in Endometriosis - ClinicalTrials.gov. https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT04728152. Accessed 11 Feb 2024
- 27.Saquib N, Saquib J, Ioannidis JPA (2015) Does screening for disease save lives in asymptomatic adults? systematic review of meta-analyses and randomized trials. Int J Epidemiol 44:264–277. 10.1093/IJE/DYU140 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Vercellini P, Giudice LC, Evers JLH, Abrao MS (2015) Reducing low-value care in endometriosis between limited evidence and unresolved issues: a proposal. Hum Reprod 30:1996–2004. 10.1093/HUMREP/DEV157 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Brosens I, Gordts S, Benagiano G (2013) Endometriosis in adolescents is a hidden, progressive and severe disease that deserves attention, not just compassion. Hum Reprod 28:2026–2031. 10.1093/HUMREP/DET243 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Gerancher KR (2018) ACOG committee opinion no 760: dysmenorrhea and endometriosis in the adolescent. Obstet Gynecol 132:249–258. 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002978 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Cunningham CT, Quan H, Hemmelgarn B et al (2015) Exploring physician specialist response rates to web-based surveys. BMC Med Res Methodol. 10.1186/S12874-015-0016-Z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Kellerman SE, Herold J (2001) Physician response to surveys. A review of the literature. Am J Prev Med 20:61–67. 10.1016/S0749-3797(00)00258-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.