Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30185198›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of surgical oncology2018

Association between the sonographer's experience and diagnostic performance of IOTA simple rules.

Chun-Ping Ning, Xiaoli Ji, Hong-Qiao Wang, Xiao-Ying Du, Hai-Tao Niu, Shi-Bao Fang

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Chun-Ping NingUltrasound Department, Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, Shandong, China.
Xiaoli JiUltrasound Department, Qingdao Women and Children Hospital, Qingdao, Shandong, China.
Hong-Qiao WangUltrasound Department, Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, Shandong, China.
Xiao-Ying DuUltrasound Department, Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, Shandong, China.
Hai-Tao NiuUrology Department, Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, No. 16 of Jiangsu Road, Qingdao, Shandong, China. ningchunping1222@163.com.
Shi-Bao FangUrology Department, Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, No. 16 of Jiangsu Road, Qingdao, Shandong, China. fsb-62@163.com.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 81501477
6 · The paper itself

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

Adnexal DiseasesAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overClinical CompetenceDiagnosis, DifferentialFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansMiddle AgedOvarian NeoplasmsROC CurveSensitivity and SpecificityUltrasonographyYoung AdultAdnexalDiagnosisMassUltrasound

Identifiers

PMID30185198
PMCPMC6125987

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.