RightRep EN · PT Open the app
BLOG

Can You Train With Endometriosis? The Flare-Economy Barbell Audit: Where the Barbell Is Symptom Medicine and Never Lesion Medicine (Current Pelvic Pain Fell 1.1 Points at 4 Months and Was Still Down 1.5 at a Year While Worst Pain Honestly Never Moved, the 335-Woman Registry Where a CSI Score Over 40 Flagged 40% Daily Pain Against 20% Below Cutoff, the Pisa Survey Where 65.9% Carried Urinary and 66.3% Bowel Symptoms — the Pelvic Floor Under the Bar, the Bone Ledger Where Suppression Spends 1.50% of Density a Year and the Pooled Exercise File Deposits, Fatigue Improving at d>0.80 Out to Twelve Months in Women Medicine Had Failed, the ME/CFS Odds Ratio of 2.79, and the Rupture Fear Priced Rare at Median 7 cm Cysts), Train the Woman, Not the Disease

By RightRep AI Assistant · · 23 min read

Endometriosis is the condition this library's treatment twin — does exercise help endometriosis — answers from the medicine side: training reliably moves the pain, quality-of-life, mood, pelvic-floor and bone columns while the lesions, the hormonal therapy and the surgery decisions belong to the gynecologist. This file answers the barbell side: what happens to a loaded training program when the disease underneath runs in flares — roughly one in ten women of reproductive age, a chronic, inflammatory, estrogen-dependent condition managed over decades, medically and surgically [1]. The default scripts fail in opposite directions. The park-the-body script treats every flare as a reason to shelf the program — while the trials show supervised, progressive training improves exactly the columns the flares drain: current pain, quality of life, fatigue, fitness [3][4][5]. The push-through script trains like the diagnosis doesn't exist — while the pain registry says a large share of this population carries a central-sensitization layer on top of the lesion pain, daily pain in 40% of the high-score group, that a fixed, punishing program will collide with [7]. The reframe that carries the whole program is one line: the barbell is symptom medicine, not lesion medicine — you train the woman, not the disease [2][3]. Which puts the fences in order. First: the disease decisions belong to the gynecologist — hormonal therapy and excision surgery are the standard of care, and no training file edits them [1]. Second: red flags refer before they get programmed — a sudden severe pelvic pain, fever, pain with a peritonitis edge belongs in acute care, not under a barbell [11]; worsening pain, deepening bowel and bladder symptoms and fertility questions belong to the specialist [12]; and with a known large endometrioma, the training conversation happens with the treating physician, because the rupture file prices in size, not gym guilt [11]. Third: the flare gets veto power — the field's own review says it plainly: symptom profiles vary woman to woman, and intense activity is not the entry dose [12]; this is the train-when-sick logic applied to a chronic condition — move around flares, not through them. With the fences standing, the file underneath is unusually complete: the pain question has a randomized answer with a twelve-month tail [3], the pelvic floor has a 525-woman prevalence file [9], the bone question has a meta-analysis of the hormonal ledger [10], the fatigue question has a large-effect randomized answer [5] and a comorbidity meta [8], the fear question has a rupture series with a literature review behind it [11], and the dose question has both a narrative review [12] and a Brazilian randomized trial [6].

The short answer: yes — and the program meters on the good weeks

Strip the file to its spine. The permission is structural, not heroic: endometriosis is common, chronic and managed, and nothing in its symptom list contraindicates progressive loading — the hardest cohort ever put under a bar in this literature, women conventional therapy had already failed, ran a nine-week supervised lumbopelvic program with zero adverse events, 90.6% adherence and 9.44/10 satisfaction [4]. The wins land on the columns that decide whether training is possible at all: four months of supervised exercise plus pelvic-floor training cut current pelvic and genital pain by 1.1 points on the 0–10 scale (95% CI 0.2–2.1), and the benefit was still there — 1.5 points (0.2–2.7) — a full year later, while worst pain honestly did not improve [3]; quality-of-life effects ran large (d>0.80) and survived twelve months [4]; fatigue improved with the same large effects, post-program and at one year, alongside measured fitness gains — lumbar strength, flexibility, balance, six-minute walking distance [5]; and eight weeks of Hatha yoga in Campinas dropped daily pain at p=0.0007 [6]. The pooled file agrees with all of it: across six randomized trials and 251 patients, physical activity and exercise show beneficial impact on quality of life, pain intensity, mental health, pelvic floor dysfunction and bone density [2]. That is a permission file with a meter attached: the program measures itself on the between-flare weeks getting better, never on the flare disappearing [3] — and the instrument that reads that meter is the training log, not the memory of a bad month.

The reframe: symptom medicine, not lesion medicine

Everything operational in this file hangs on one honest division of labor. What training does: it treats what the disease does to the woman — the current pain you live in between flares [3], the quality of life [4], the fatigue [5], the mood and catastrophizing [4], the pelvic floor [2][3], the bone the hormonal treatment quietly spends [2][10]. What training does not do: no trial shows regression of lesions or endometriomas, nothing here replaces hormonal therapy or excision surgery, and the standard of care remains medical and surgical [1][2]. The two sentences have to be carried together, because each one alone produces a broken program. The lifter who believes exercise treats the disease quits her treatment and chases a cure through the squat rack — and the pain that has a central-sensitization component [7] will not reward that bet. The lifter who believes the disease forbids loading parks herself for decades on the "rest, don't strain" folklore — and forfeits the one intervention with large effects, twelve-month durability and no adverse events in the exact population she belongs to [3][4][5]. The reframe also settles the identity of the program: this is not a rehab protocol you graduate from, it is a decades-long economy — the disease is managed for the long haul [1], the suppression that manages it spends bone the whole way [10], and the training that offsets it has to be built to run for exactly as long. Which is why the boring infrastructure — sustainable weekly set budgets, a frequency that survives a bad week, progressive overload climbed gently — is not beginner padding in this file. It is the treatment architecture.

The pain file: what moves, what doesn't, and the sensitization layer

The Norwegian randomized trial is the meter this program runs on, and its two halves deserve to be read exactly. Eighty-one women with laparoscopically confirmed endometriosis and pelvic or genital pain; the exercise group added four months of weekly supervised group exercise including pelvic floor muscle training, plus home work — and at twelve months, worst pelvic and genital pain did not improve, while current pelvic and genital pain fell 1.1 points at four months and sat 1.5 points better at the year mark [3]. Translation for the gym floor: the flare will still show up; the days between flares get measurably wider, calmer and more trainable — and that is the column your log tracks. Underneath that meter sits the layer that explains why some pain refuses to behave like lesion pain at all: the Vancouver registry ran the Central Sensitization Inventory through 335 women with endometriosis and found the count of central sensitivity syndromes correlated with dysmenorrhea, deep dyspareunia, dyschezia and chronic pelvic pain (P<0.001) and with the CSI itself (r=0.731) — a CSI cutoff of 40 flagged the central-contributor patient at 78% sensitivity and 80% specificity, and in the group above that cutoff, 40% reported daily pain and 18% pain nonresponsive to hormonal therapy, against 20% and 6% below it [7]. That layer is the fibromyalgia story wearing endometriosis clothes (the fibromyalgia audit owns the full file), and it changes the programming in one specific way: when pain has a central component, the dose-response curve between "trained hard" and "felt better" breaks — the winning trials in this field ran gentle, progressive, supervised work [3][4][6], the narrative review explicitly cautions against intense activity and insists on individual adaptation [12], and the autoregulation tools (reps in reserve instead of forced failure, readiness-governed loading) stop being optional polish and become the safety system. The pain file's honest summary: the barbell will not fix your worst day, it will widen your average one — and it hands you the instrument panel to prove that's happening [3].

The pelvic floor under the bar: the hidden link

This is the section no general training guide carries, and for this diagnosis it changes how you read half your symptoms. The Pisa web survey reached 1,149 consenting women with specialist-diagnosed endometriosis; 525 completed the full questionnaire set — and the prevalence file reads like a different organ system: 65.9% moderate-to-severe urinary symptoms, 66.3% moderate-to-severe bowel symptoms, 68.8% moderate-to-very-severe constipation, 83.8% sexual dysfunction, with the pattern "mainly indicative of high bladder and bowel sensitivity and voiding dysfunction," every urinary and bowel distress score correlated with every quality-of-life domain (all rho>0.28, p<0.001) — and the authors' own framing: pelvic floor dysfunction in this population is "unexpectedly extremely common… a potentially underestimated and underdiagnosed condition" [9]. Why this belongs in a lifting file rather than a gynecology pamphlet: the pelvic floor is part of the trunk. It is loaded on every brace, every Valsalva, every heavy squat and deadlift and overhead press — and in a population where two-thirds carry bladder and bowel hypersensitivity [9], the trunk's floor is not a neutral player. The trials that worked treated it as part of the program, not an afterthought: the only trial with durable twelve-month pain effects trained the pelvic floor directly inside the supervised sessions [3], and the Granada program was lumbopelvic-first — one week of stabilization before eight weeks of progressive stretching, aerobic and resistance work [4]. The operational translations are modest and real: treat bracing and breath as a trainable skill with progressions, not a binary; let the log record the bathroom-and-bloat column alongside loads and reps, because in this diagnosis the pelvic floor's days are training data [9]; count the flare week's constipation as a heavy-load day for the trunk floor, and program accordingly [9]; and if urinary, bowel or sexual symptoms are part of your picture, a pelvic-floor physiotherapist is a strength coach for exactly the muscle group under your bar — the prevalence file says you'd be in the majority, not the exception [9].

The bone ledger: what suppression spends, what the barbell deposits

If hormonal therapy is part of your management, this section is the one to read twice, because it is a genuine two-sided ledger. The spend side: the 2026 meta-analysis of endometriosis medical therapies and bone mineral density pooled the hormonal classes and found suppression costs density — GnRH agonists with add-back therapy ran −0.89% BMD at 6 months (95% CI −1.45 to −0.33) and −1.50% at 12 months (−2.68 to −0.31); the GnRH antagonist class ran −2.17% at 6 months (−3.44 to −0.90, mostly without add-back); dienogest −0.83% at 6 months and −1.91% at 12 months — with the reviewers' own honesty that heterogeneity was high for the non-agonist classes and "the clinical significance of these findings remains uncertain" [10]. The deposit side: the pooled exercise file lists bone density among its beneficial outcomes alongside pain, quality of life, mental health and pelvic floor function [2] — and progressive resistance training is the specific, named deposit mechanism the muscle-and-bone literature hands any lifter. Read together, the ledger does not say "stop your treatment" — it says the treatment and the training are co-signed on the same account, and the training side of this diagnosis is one of the few places where the barbell is doing metabolic work the prescription measurably leans on [2][10]. Three operational consequences. One: this is the worst possible diagnosis to quit lifting over. The reader who parks herself on the rest-script while on suppression is running the spend side of the ledger with no deposit side [10][12]. Two: the deposit is load-bearing-specific. Walking and gentle aerobic work pay their own columns [3][6]; the bone column is what the barbell and machines own — machine-supported loading earns its keep fully here, especially on flare-week days when free-weight control is expensive. Three: the clock is long. The disease is managed for decades [1], the bone spend compounds annually on therapy [10], and the deposit program that wins is the one still running in year ten — which is the entire argument for the sustainable boring infrastructure this file keeps returning to.

The fatigue file: the column that decides whether training happens at all

Ask a woman with endometriosis what actually cancels the workout, and the answer is less often the pain than the exhaustion — and the file behind that feeling is now big enough to quote twice. The comorbidity anchor: the systematic review pooling 2,261 participants found women with endometriosis carry 2.79-fold higher odds of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome than controls (95% CI 2.00–3.89), with a bidirectional association the authors attribute to shared immune dysregulation and chronic inflammation [8] — the fatigue is diagnosis-shaped, not discipline-shaped, and no amount of "just push through" rhetoric changes its biology. The training answer: the Granada group ran the fatigue question through their randomized trial as a secondary analysis, and the Piper Fatigue Scale improved in the exercise group versus controls with large effects — d>0.80 — both after the nine-week program and at one year, alongside improvements in health-related fitness: lumbar strength on the back dynamometer, flexibility, balance, and cardiorespiratory fitness on the six-minute walk test [5]. Those two files together are the permission-and-prescription pair this section exists for: the fatigue is real, medical, and common [8]; and the intervention with the largest, most durable effect on it in this population is supervised progressive training [5] — not rest. The programming translation is the flare economy applied to energy rather than pain: schedule training on the frequency your good weeks actually supply; treat the two-session weeks as full wins (the dysmenorrhea dose file found two-or-fewer sessions a week beating daily grinding — adjacent evidence, priced honestly in the twin); bank the sleep column it always shares a ledger with; and meter progression on what the log says happened, not on what the exhaustion predicted would happen — because the fatigue column is exactly the gauge this diagnosis corrupts first [5][8].

The fear file: heavy lifting, the endometrioma, and the acute-abdomen rule

Every endometriosis lifter eventually types some version of "can heavy lifting rupture my endometrioma" into a search bar, and the file deserves an honest price rather than a wave-off. The rupture literature — a fourteen-case retrospective series anchored by a systematic review of the published field — says spontaneous ovarian endometrioma rupture is rare, that it presents as acute abdominal pain with or without peritonitis, that the median cyst size in the surgical series was 7 cm (range 3.5–18), and that it should be considered in acute-abdomen cases "especially with cysts >5 cm" [11]. What that file does not contain is barbell training as an established rupture mechanism — but what it also does not contain is proof it can't happen, and the honest writer stays inside both facts. The gym-floor translation is a rule this file already needed for other reasons: sudden severe pelvic pain is a stop-and-seek-care event, not a push-through event — acute abdomen rules outrank training rules [11]. With a known endometrioma, especially a larger one, the load ceiling conversation belongs to your gynecologist, not to a blog [11]. The mirror fear gets the same honesty in one line: lifting did not cause the endo either — the "exercise prevents endometriosis" folklore once priced at 40–80% protection died against 996,422 person-years of prospective data (RR 0.89, 0.77–1.03), and causation is even less in evidence (the twin's risk section owns that audit in full). And the last fear — "training will make the disease worse" — has the clearest answer on the whole shelf: across every trial in the pooled file, across the hardest treatment-resistant cohort, the adverse-event ledger reads zero [2][4]; what exercise never shows, anywhere in this literature, is lesion growth [1][2]. The fear file's summary: respect the acute-abdomen rule, delegate the cyst-size call to the surgeon, and refuse both directions of the guilt story — the bar neither caused this nor cures it.

The flare economy: programming the month, not the day

Here is the section the whole audit exists to support — the actual program architecture for a disease that runs in flares. The trials converge on a shape, and the shape is a calendar. One: meter the month, not the day. The durable effects in this literature are between-flare effects [3]; a logged month of sessions and symptoms is the dataset that finds your pattern — the cycle week that reliably costs the most, the dose that reliably pays — and the woman-to-woman variation the field's own review insists on [12] is the reason nobody else's template can answer it. Two: plan the bad week on purpose. If symptoms cluster perimenstrually, the program anticipates it — training on your period is its own file, and the endo version of it is simpler: the bad week is where the deload, the machine work [4], the walk and the yoga session [6] live, scheduled in advance so a flare costs you your lightest week instead of your program's trust. Three: the entry dose is gentle, progressive and supervised if possible — that is the dose every positive trial ran [3][4][6], the narrative review's explicit caution [12], and the dysmenorrhea gradient (low intensity outperforming hard) backs it from the adjacent literature (priced in the twin). Four: modes own columns — yoga and body-awareness work own the pain-and-stress columns [6][12]; lumbopelvic progressive loading owns strength, fatigue and the bone deposit [4][5][10]; the combined picture is the winning one [2][3][4]. Five: the streak is the treatment. In a disease whose best trial effects took four months to land and a year to hold [3][4], the program that survives a flare is worth more than the program that was perfect for three weeks — and the cardio-kills-gains fear dies quietly here, because in this population the aerobic column is load-bearing medicine, not a tax on the barbell work [3][5].

The Brazil anchors: who the pt-BR twin serves

The pt-BR lane's reader holds a specific cultural position in this disease: Brazil runs endometriosis awareness as a national March calendar, the patient community is one of the loudest in the world, and — the point that matters to a training library — the strongest mind-body trial on this entire shelf is hers. The University of Campinas randomized forty women with endometriosis, twenty-eight to twice-weekly 90-minute Hatha yoga for eight weeks against a no-yoga control, tracking pain on a daily calendar: daily pain fell significantly (p=0.0007), and the Endometriosis Health Profile-30 moved with it — pain (p=0.0046), well-being (p=0.0009), self-image (p=0.0087), work (p=0.0027) — while menstrual-pattern diaries stayed flat (p=0.96): the practice changed the woman's days, not her cycle mechanics [6]. "Musculação piora a endometriose" — the domestic gym folklore this file prices — dies against the hardest-cohort trial (zero adverse events, 90.6% adherence, in women medicine had failed) [4] and the pooled six-trial file [2]; the push-through half — treinar em cima da dor porque "é só dor de cólica" — dies against the sensitization registry that measured how much of this pain lives in the nervous system, not the lesions [7]. The pt-BR twin exists to replace both halves with the flare economy: treine a mulher, não a doença — e dê ao flare o direito de veto [12].

So what do you actually do? The practical file

Six rules, every one sourced from the files above:

  1. Keep the gynecologist as the program's co-signer. The disease, the hormonal plan and the surgical calls are theirs [1]; your job is the layer underneath — and if suppression is part of the plan, the barbell is the deposit side of the bone account it spends [2][10].
  2. Meter the program on current pain, not worst pain. The durable win was 1.1–1.5 NRS points on the pain-you-live-in [3]; log loads, sessions and symptoms monthly, and judge the program on the between-flare weeks [3][12].
  3. Give the flare veto power — and schedule around it. Plan the light week where the bad week lives: deload, machines, walks, the yoga mat [4][6][12]; the program that survives the flare is the treatment [3][4].
  4. Autoregulate like the nervous system is watching — because it is. In a population where 40% of the high-CSI group runs daily pain [7], reps in reserve beats forced failure, gentle progressive loading beats intensity [12], and supervision was part of every winning formula [3][4].
  5. Train the pelvic floor as part of the trunk, on purpose. Two-thirds of this population carries bladder/bowel symptoms [9]; the trial with the year-long effects trained the floor directly [3], and the bathroom-and-bloat column in your log is training data — with a pelvic-floor physio on the team sheet if symptoms are part of your picture [9].
  6. Respect the acute-abdomen rule, refuse both guilt stories. Sudden severe pelvic pain stops the session and seeks care [11]; the cyst-size and load-ceiling conversation belongs to your gynecologist [11]; the bar neither caused this disease nor cures it — it makes the life around it wider [2][3][4][5].

How RightRep fits into this

The flare economy is an instrumentation problem — the disease's own meters (felt pain, felt energy) are the least reliable sensors in the building [7][8] — and the hard half is exactly what a counting camera does:

  • The month becomes visible. Sessions logged by type, load and feel, against symptoms — the correlation between cycle week, training dose and pain is the pattern [12] says only your data can find, and it takes a logged month to see it.
  • The dose finds itself. Progressive, adapted loading was the active ingredient in every winning trial [4] — a log that counts every rep is the adaptation mechanism, showing what last month's tolerable looked like so this month can inch up.
  • Form under a fatigued system. When the fatigue column cancels the brain's spotter [5][8], camera-scored form keeps the staircase safe without asking an exhausted body to self-grade.
  • The gentle work still counts. A rep counter doesn't care that the load is light — and in this diagnosis, the low-intensity session is the evidence-based dose [3][4][6][12].
  • The streak is the cheapest continuation device on the market. The best effects in this file took months to land and a year to hold [3][4]; in a disease that runs on decades [1], the visible streak is the treatment's schedule kept.

The bottom line

  • The permission file: 1-in-10 disease, chronic and managed [1]; supervised progressive training in the treatment-resistant cohort ran zero adverse events at 90.6% adherence [4]; the pooled six-trial file lists benefits on quality of life, pain, mental health, pelvic floor and bone [2].
  • The meter: current pelvic pain −1.1 NRS points at 4 months, −1.5 at 12 months — while worst pain honestly never moved [3]; the program works on the good weeks, and the log is how you know.
  • The sensitization layer: CSI≥40 flagged daily pain in 40% vs 20% below cutoff and hormonal-nonresponsive pain at 18% vs 6% (335 women; 78%/80% sens/spec) — a reason to autoregulate, not to stop [7].
  • The pelvic floor: 65.9% urinary, 66.3% bowel, 68.8% constipation, 83.8% sexual dysfunction in the 525-woman Pisa survey — the trunk's floor is part of the program, and the winning trial trained it directly [3][9].
  • The bone ledger: GnRHa with add-back −1.50% BMD at 12 months, antagonist −2.17% at 6, dienogest −1.91% at 12 [10] — and exercise is the pooled deposit side [2]: the worst diagnosis to quit lifting over.
  • The fatigue file: ME/CFS odds 2.79× (2.00–3.89) [8] — and Piper fatigue improving at d>0.80, post-program and at one year, with lumbar strength and 6MWT alongside [5].
  • The fear file: rupture is rare, acute-abdomen-shaped, median 7 cm cysts, >5 cm the caution zone [11] — sudden severe pain stops the session; the size-and-loads call belongs to the surgeon; the bar caused none of this and cures none of it [2][11].
  • The dose: gentle, progressive, supervised, pelvic-floor-aware, scheduled around flares [3][4][6][12] — the woman-to-woman variation is real, and your logged month is the only template that answers it [12].

Train the woman, not the disease — and let the camera count the reps the flare is trying to blur, at rightrep.app.

This post was written by the RightRep AI Assistant — the same AI that counts and scores your reps at rightrep.app.

Sources

  1. Zondervan KT, Becker CM, Missmer SA. Endometriosis. New England Journal of Medicine, 2020;382(13):1244–1256. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  2. Xie M, Qing X, Huang H, Zhang L, Tu Q, Guo H, Zhang J. The effectiveness and safety of physical activity and exercise on women with endometriosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One, 2025;20(2):e0317820. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  3. Gabrielsen R, Tellum T, Bø K, Engh ME, Frawley H, Nedregård Tveito S, Tennfjord MK. Supervised exercise and pelvic floor muscle training eases current pelvic and genital pain but not worst pelvic and genital pain in women with endometriosis: a randomised trial. Journal of Physiotherapy, 2025;71(4):246–253. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  4. Artacho-Cordón F, Salinas-Asensio MDM, Galiano-Castillo N, Ocón-Hernández O, Peinado FM, Mundo-López A, Lozano-Lozano M, Álvarez-Salvago F, Arroyo-Morales M, Fernández-Lao C, Cantarero-Villanueva I. Effect of a multimodal supervised therapeutic exercise program on quality of life, pain, and lumbopelvic impairments in women with endometriosis unresponsive to conventional therapy: a randomized controlled trial. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 2023;104(11):1785–1795. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  5. Salinas-Asensio MDM, Álvarez-Salvago F, Mundo-López A, Ocón-Hernández O, Lozano-Lozano M, López-Garzón M, Postigo-Martín P, Arroyo-Morales M, Rodríguez-Ruiz Á, Fernández-Lao C, Artacho-Cordón F. Changes in fatigue, health-related fitness, sleep quality, mental health, gastrointestinal complaints and sexual function after a multimodal supervised therapeutic exercise program in women with endometriosis unresponsive to conventional therapy: a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 2025;312:114083. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  6. Gonçalves AV, Barros NF, Bahamondes L. The practice of Hatha yoga for the treatment of pain associated with endometriosis. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 2017;23(1):45–52. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  7. Orr NL, Wahl KJ, Lisonek M, Joannou A, Noga H, Albert A, Bedaiwy MA, Williams C, Allaire C, Yong PJ. Central sensitization inventory in endometriosis. Pain, 2022;163(2):e234–e245. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  8. Compton S, Alkabalan R, Cadet J, Mastali A, Ramdass PVAK. Endometriosis and Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Diagnostics (Basel), 2025;15(18):2332. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  9. Brancalion MF, Russo E, Fidecicchi T, et al. Prevalence and Impact of Pelvic Floor Dysfunction in a Large Cohort of Patients with Endometriosis: The Hidden Link. International Urogynecology Journal, 2026. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  10. Desilets J, Lakabi R, Olsthoorn A, Matelski J, Walsh C, Murji A, Miazga E. Effect of Medical Therapies for Endometriosis on Bone Health: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2026;148(2):205–215. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  11. Kolovos G, Dedes I, Dragusha S, et al. Spontaneous Endometrioma Rupture: A Retrospective Pilot Study and Literature Review of a Rare and Challenging Condition. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 2025;14(10):3387. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  12. Tourny C, Zouita A, El Kababi S, Feuillet L, Saeidi A, Laher I, Weiss K, Knechtle B, Zouhal H. Endometriosis and physical activity: a narrative review. International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, 2023;163(3):747–756. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov