Advanced search
Publication Cover
Pathology Volume 33, 2001 - Issue 3
Submit an article Journal homepage
6
Views
1
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Research Article

THE ACCURACY AND INTEROBSERVER REPRODUCIBILITY OF ENDOMETRIAL DATING

Máire A. Duggan, Penny Brasher, Andrew Ostor, James Scurry, Virginia Billson, Paul Kneafsey, Lisa Difrancesco Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, and the Departments of Pathology
Pages 292-297 | Published online: 06 Jul 2009

  • Sahway S, Oral E, Saridogan E, Senturk L, Atasu T. Endometrial biopsy findings in infertility: analysis of 12,949 cases. Int J Fertil 1995; 40: 316-21.
  • Wentz AC. Endometrial biopsy in the evaluation of infertility. Fertil Steril 1980; 33: 121-4.
  • Jones GS. The luteal phase defect. Fertil Steril 1976; 27: 381-6.
  • McNeely MJ, Soules MR. The diagnosis of luteal phase deficiency: a critical review. Fertil Steril 1988; 50: 1-15.
  • Sternberg SS. Histology for Pathologists. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven, 1997: 911-3.
  • Noyes RW, Hertig AT, Rock J. Dating the endometrial biopsy. Fertil Steril 1950; 1: 3-25.
  • Fox H, editor. Haines and Taylor Obstetrical and Gynaecological Pathology. 4th ed. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1995: 810-34.
  • Noyes RW, Hainan JO. Accuracy of endometrial dating. Correlation of endometrial dating with basal body temperatures and menses. Fertil Steril 1953; 4: 504-17.
  • Lundy KE, Lee SG, Levy W, et al. The ovulatory cycle. A histologie, thermal, steroid, and gonadotrophin correlation. Obstet Gynecol 1974; 44: 14-25.
  • Scott RT, Snyder RR, Strickland DM, a al. The effect of interobserver variation in dating endometrial histology on the diagnosis of luteal phase defects. Fertil Steril 1988; 6: 888-92.
  • Smith S, Hosid S, Scott L. Endometrial biopsy dating. J Reprod Med 1995; 40: 1-3.
  • Holman CD, James IR, Heenan PJ, et al. An improved method of analysis of observer variation between pathdogists. Histopathology 1982; 6: 581-9.
  • Intersociety Working Group for Cytology Technologies. Proposed guidelines for primary screening instruments for gynecologic cytology. Acta Cytol 1997; 41: 924-9.
  • Sneige N, Lagios MD, Schwarting R, et al. Interobserver reproducibility of the Lagios nuclear grading system for ductal carcinoma in situ. Hum Pathol 1999; 30: 257-62.
  • Tin-Chiu L, Dockery P, Rogers AW, Cooke ID. How precise is histologie dating of endometrium using standard dating criteria. Fertil Steril 1989; 51: 759-63.
  • Scott R, Snyder RS, Bagnall JW, et al. Evaluation of the impact of intraobserver variability on endometrial dating and the diagnosis of luteal phase defects. Fertil Steril 1993; 60: 652-7.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Order Reprints Request Corporate Permissions

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

Request Academic Permissions

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.