Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27514486›Full record

ArticleUltrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology2017

Estimating risk of malignancy in adnexal masses: external validation of the ADNEX model and comparison with other frequently used ultrasound methods.

E M J Meys, L S Jeelof, N M J Achten, B F M Slangen, S Lambrechts, R F P M Kruitwagen, T Van Gorp

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
7.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

51 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 108 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound models for assessment of ovarian tumors: systematic review and meta-analysis.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Developing and validating ultrasound-based machine-learning models incorporating radiomics features to predict malignancy in adnexal masses.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2026
    Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Radiomics analysis of ultrasound images to discriminate between benign and malignant adnexal masses with solid morphology on ultrasound.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2025
    Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

E M J MeysDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Maastricht University Medical Center + (MUMC+), Maastricht, The Netherlands.
L S JeelofDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Maastricht University Medical Center + (MUMC+), Maastricht, The Netherlands.
N M J AchtenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Maastricht University Medical Center + (MUMC+), Maastricht, The Netherlands.
B F M SlangenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Maastricht University Medical Center + (MUMC+), Maastricht, The Netherlands.
S LambrechtsDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Maastricht University Medical Center + (MUMC+), Maastricht, The Netherlands.
R F P M KruitwagenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Maastricht University Medical Center + (MUMC+), Maastricht, The Netherlands.
T Van GorpDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Maastricht University Medical Center + (MUMC+), Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Maastricht University Medical Centre · NLMaastricht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo validate externally the performance of the Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) model and compare this model with other frequently used models in the differentiation between benign and malignant adnexal masses.

methodsIn this retrospective diagnostic accuracy study, we assessed data collected prospectively from patients with adnexal pathology who underwent real-time transvaginal or transrectal ultrasound by a single expert ultrasonographer in a tertiary care hospital between July 2011 and July 2015. The presence of a malignancy was determined by subjective assessment and use of four prediction models: the ADNEX model, simple ultrasound-based rules (simple rules), Logistic Regression model 2 (LR2) and the Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI), of which three different variants were assessed. Pathology was the clinical reference standard.

resultsIn total, 851 consecutive patients underwent ultrasound examination for an adnexal mass. For 326 patients (128 premenopausal and 198 postmenopausal), pathology results were available (211 (64.7%) benign; 115 (35.3%) malignant) and these were included in the analysis. The area under the receiver-operating characteristics curve (AUC) of the ADNEX model for the discrimination between benign and malignant tumors was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.89-0.95). AUCs for the subtypes of malignancy (i.e. borderline, Stage I-IV and metastatic adnexal tumors) ranged between 0.60 and 0.90. Only subjective assessment (AUC, 0.96 (95% CI, 0.93-0.98)) was superior to the ADNEX model (P = 0.01) in differentiating malignant from benign tumors. AUCs for the other models were 0.92 (95% CI, 0.89-0.95) for LR2, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.81-0.89) for RMI-I, 0.82 (95% CI, 0.77-0.86) for RMI-II and 0.84 (95% CI, 0.80-0.88) for RMI-III. At the proposed cut-off of ≥ 10%, the ADNEX model had the highest sensitivity (0.98 (95% CI, 0.93-1.00)) but the lowest specificity (0.62 (95% CI, 0.55-0.68)) compared with the other models. Both subjective assessment (sensitivity, 0.90 (95% CI, 0.83-0.95); specificity 0.91 (95% CI, 0.86-0.94)) and the simple rules model with inconclusive cases classified by subjective assessment (sensitivity, 0.89 (95% CI, 0.81-0.94); specificity, 0.90 (95% CI, 0.85-0.94)) had lower sensitivity, but their sensitivity and specificity were better balanced.

conclusionsAlthough the test performance of subjective assessment by an expert remains superior, the ADNEX model can help in the differentiation between benign and malignant ovarian tumors. The advantage of the ADNEX model as a polytomous model remains to be shown. © 2016 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Indexed as

Neoplasm StagingAdnexal DiseasesAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMiddle AgedModels, TheoreticalNetherlandsOvarian NeoplasmsReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentUltrasonographyADNEX modeldiagnostic test accuracyLR2ovarian carcinomaRMIsimple rulessubjective assessment

Identifiers

PMID27514486
PMCPMC5488216
OpenAlexW2510455894

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.