ArticleAnnals of laboratory medicine2019
Diagnostic Accuracy of the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm in Clinical Practice at a Single Hospital in Korea.
Article in Annals of laboratory medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Menopausal status, ultrasound and biomarker tests in combination for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer in symptomatic women.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA) is used for assessing ovarian cancer risk in women with a pelvic mass. Its diagnostic accuracy is variable. We investigated whether the clinically acceptable minimal sensitivity of >80.0% could be obtained with the suggested cutoff of 7.4%/25.3% for pre/postmenopausal women and with adjusted cutoffs set to a specificity of ≥75.0% or a sensitivity of 95.0%, in a hospital with a lower ovarian cancer (OC) prevalence than previously reported.
methodsROMA scores were calculated from measurements of human epididymis protein 4 and cancer antigen 125 in blood specimens from 443 patients with a pelvic mass. The ROMA-based risk group was compared against biopsy (N=309) or clinical follow-up with imaging (N=134) results. The ROMA sensitivity and specificity for predicting epithelial OC (EOC) and borderline ovarian tumor (BOT) were calculated for the suggested and adjusted cutoff values.
resultsWhen targeting BOT and EOC, the prevalence was 7.4% and sensitivity and specificity at the suggested cutoff were 63.6% and 90.7%, respectively. Sensitivity was 81.8% at the 4.65%/13.71% cutoff set to a specificity of 75.0%. When targeting only EOC, the prevalence was 4.1% and sensitivity and specificity at the suggested cutoff were 77.8% and 89.4%, respectively. Sensitivity was 88.9% at the 4.78%/14.35% cutoff set to a specificity of 75.0%.
conclusionsThe sensitivity of ROMA was lower than expected when using the suggested cutoff. When using the adjusted cutoff, its sensitivity reached 80.0%.
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.