Tubal pelvic damage is a common cause of infertility, and laparoscopy is the accepted gold standard for its diagnosis. However, laparoscopy is both costly and invasive. Chlamydia is now recognized as the most common cause of tubal pelvic damage. In contrast to laparoscopy, evidence of past chlamydial infection using serology is readily avilable, and the test is simple and quick to perform. As such, serology can be used as a screening test in infertile women. It is accepted that screening tests may have higher margins of error and may be less accurate than diagnostic tests. Screening is most valuable when detecting a disease for which the treatment is more effective when undertaken at the earliest opportunity. Because there are justified constraints to the indiscriminate use of laparoscopy, there is a need to minimize the number of patients who do not have disease (false positives) who are subjected to this diagnostic investigation. An appropriate Chlamydia antibody titre that would distinguish women at risk of tubal pelvic damage should be determined using diagnostic test analysis and clinical judgement. Identification by serology of women who are likely to have damage would enable these women to undergo a diagnostic test such as laparoscopy sooner, allowing treatment to be provided earlier. However, the severity of tubal pelvic damage varies, and the need to distinguish women with a favourable or unfavourable prognosis after treatment using a simple classification system is discussed.
|Translated title of the contribution||Tubal Pelvic Damage: prediction and prognosis|
|Number of pages||6|
|Issue number||Supplement 1|
|Early online date||3 Jul 2002|
|Publication status||Published - 2002|