ArticleWorld journal of surgical oncology2018
Association between the sonographer's experience and diagnostic performance of IOTA simple rules.
Article in World journal of surgical oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Have Iota Simple Rules the Same Diagnostic Performance When Used by Nonexpert Examiners as Compared to Expert Examiners? Systematic Review and Meta-Analisis.Journal of clinical ultrasound : JCU · 2026Pooled it
- Comparison of Two-Dimensional IOTA Simple Rules and Three-Dimensional Ultrasonography in Preoperative Assessment of Adnexal Masses.The Indian journal of radiology & imaging · 2024Article
- Evaluation of IOTA-ADNEX Model and Simple Rules for Identifying Adnexal Masses by Operators with Varying Levels of Expertise: A Single-Center Diagnostic Accuracy Study.Ultrasound international open · 2023Article
- A comparison of the diagnostic performance of the O-RADS, RMI4, IOTA LR2, and IOTA SR systems by senior and junior doctors.Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea) · 2022Article
- Management of the Adnexal Mass: Considerations for the Family Medicine Physician.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- Ultrasound Assessment of Adnexal Pathology: Standardized Methods and Different Levels of Experience.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021Article
- Predicting Malignancy in Adnexal Masses by the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis-Simple Rules.Journal of mid-life healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo validate the clinical value of simple rules in distinguishing malignant adnexal masses from benign ones and to explore the effect of simple rules for experienced and less-experienced sonographers.
methodsPatients with persistent adnexal masses were enrolled between November 2013 and December 2015. All masses were proven through histological examinations. Five sets of diagnoses were made and compared with one another. Diagnosis 1 was made, according to the simple rules, by a trainee with little clinical diagnostic experience. Diagnoses 2 and 3 were made by experienced and less-experienced sonographers, respectively, according to their clinical experiences. With diagnosis 1 as a reference, the two sonographers were asked to provide a second diagnosis, which were diagnoses 4 and 5. The efficiency of the five sets of diagnoses was compared using ROC curves.
resultsIn total, 75 malignant (37.7%) and 124 benign lesions (62.3%) were enrolled in this study. The mean diameter of the benign masses was obviously smaller than that of the malignant ones (6.8 ± 3.4 cm vs. 9.3 ± 4.9 cm, p < 0.01). The malignant ratio in postmenopausal women was much higher (66.1%) than that in the premenopausal population (25.7%) (p < 0.0001). Totally, 156 of the 199 cases (79.4%) resulted in conclusive diagnoses. Sensitivity and specificity were 98.4% and 73.9%, respectively, among the conclusive cases. The area under the ROC curve (Az) for the simple rule diagnosis was significantly lower than that for the experienced sonographer diagnosis (0.85 vs. 0.96, p < 0.0001); compared with the less-experienced sonographer, this difference was not significant (0.85 vs. 0.86, p = 0.9776). No significant difference was found in the comparison between the diagnoses made by the experienced sonographer before and after referencing the simple rule diagnosis (Az, 0.96 vs. 0.97, p = 0.2055). Using diagnosis 1 as a reference, the diagnostic performance of the less-experienced sonographer increased (from 0.86 to 0.92, p = 0.012); however, it was still lower than that of the experienced sonographer (Az, 96% vs. 92%, p = 0.0241).
conclusionsThe simple rules was an appealing method for discriminating malignant masses from benign ones, particularly for a less-experienced sonographer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.