Was Sampson wrong?

Redwine DB

doi:10.1016/s0015-0282(02)03329-0

Was Sampson wrong?

David B Redwine

Author affiliations

St. Charles Medical Center ROR

Fertility and Sterility, 78(4), 686-693, 2002

DOI 10.1016/s0015-0282(02)03329-0 PMID 12372441 Source

Abstract

No abstract available for this article.

Topics

Endometriosis > Pathophysiology > Etiology Theories Endometriosis > Pathophysiology > Retrograde Menstruation Debate Ethics/Philosophy > Scientific Debate > Disease Causation

Redwine Sampson retrograde menstruation theory, endometriosis pathogenesis Sampson theory critique, origin of endometriosis implantation versus embryonic rest, Mullerian rest theory endometriosis, Redwine endometriosis etiology challenge, retrograde menstruation endometriosis causation debate, endometriosis pathophysiology alternative theories, Sampson transplantation theory critique, embryonic origin of endometriosis, endometriosis histogenesis debate

PMID 12372441 12372441 DOI 10.1016/s0015-0282(02)03329-0 10.1016/s0015-0282(02)03329-0

Cite this article

Redwine, D. B. (2002). Was Sampson wrong?. *Fertility and Sterility*, *78*(4), 686-693. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(02)03329-0

Was Sampson wrong?

Abstract

Topics

Cite this article

Related articles

Neonatal characteristics of children conceived with in vitro fertilization or intrauterine insemination compared with sibling births from unassisted conceptions

Disordered eating behaviors during adolescence and risk of endometriosis: a prospective cohort study

"Reply of the authors: ""Response to ""The illusion of reproductive choice: how restorative reproductive medicine violates informed consent for infertility treatment"""""

Reply of the authors: "Response to "The illusion of reproductive choice: how restorative reproductive medicine violates reproductive autonomy and informed consent"" by Frank-Herrmann et al