ArticleEuropean radiology2019
Gynecology Imaging Reporting and Data System (GI-RADS): diagnostic performance and inter-reviewer agreement.
Article in European radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- GI-RADS versus O-RADS in the differential diagnosis of adnexal masses: a systematic review and head-to-head meta-analysis.Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea) · 2024Pooled it
- Comparing and combining O-RADS ultrasound, serum CA125, and HE4 for the preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumors.BMC medical imaging · 2026Article
- Diagnostic Performance of Gynecologic Imaging Reporting and Data System (GI-RADS) in Preoperative Evaluation of Adnexal Masses.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Comparison of ADNEX Model with GI-RADS Ultrasound Scoring System in Evaluation of Adnexal Mass.Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India · 2025Article
- Follicular thyroid carcinoma within a struma ovarii: a case report.Journal of surgical case reports · 2023Article
- Predictive accuracy and reproducibility of the O-RADS US scoring system among sonologists with different training levels.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2023Article
- American college of radiology ovarian-adnexal reporting and data system ultrasound (O-RADS): Diagnostic performance and inter-reviewer agreement for ovarian masses in children.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
- Interobserver agreement between eight observers using IOTA simple rules and O-RADS lexicon descriptors for adnexal masses.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2022Article
- The learning curve and difficult points of the O-RADS ultrasound risk stratification system in 54 trainees.Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea) · 2022Article
- [Adnexal Masses: Clinical Application of Multiparametric MR Imaging & O-RADS MRI].Taehan Yongsang Uihakhoe chi · 2021Review
- Ultrasound Assessment of Adnexal Pathology: Standardized Methods and Different Levels of Experience.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021Article
- ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE Consensus Statement on pre-operative diagnosis of ovarian tumors.International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society · 2021Review
- ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE Consensus Statement on preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumours.Facts, views & vision in ObGyn · 2021Article
- The diagnostic performance of the Gynecologic Imaging Reporting and Data System (GI-RADS) in adnexal masses.Annals of translational medicine · 2021Article
- Comparison of O-RADS, GI-RADS, and IOTA simple rules regarding malignancy rate, validity, and reliability for diagnosis of adnexal masses.European radiology · 2021Article
- Multimodality imaging review of complex pelvic lesions in female pelvis.The British journal of radiology · 2020Review
- Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting Data System Magnetic Resonance Imaging (O-RADS MRI) Score for Risk Stratification of Sonographically Indeterminate Adnexal Masses.JAMA network open · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate diagnostic performance and inter-reviewer agreement (IRA) of the Gynecologic Imaging Reporting and Data System (GI-RADS) for diagnosis of adnexal masses (AMs) by pelvic ultrasound (US). PATIENTS AND
methodsA prospective multicenter study included 308 women (mean age, 41 ± 12.5 years; range, 15-73 years) with 325 AMs detected by US. All US examinations were analyzed, and AMs were categorized into five categories according to the GI-RADS classification. We used histopathology and US follow-up as the reference standards for calculating diagnostic performance of GI-RADS for detecting malignant AMs. The Fleiss kappa (κ) tests were applied to evaluate the IRA of GI-RADS scoring results for predicting malignant AMs.
resultsA total of 325 AMs were evaluated: 127 (39.1%) were malignant and 198 (60.9%) were benign. Of 95 AMs categorized as GI-RADS 2 (GR2), none was malignant; of 94 AMs categorized as GR3, three were malignant; of 13 AMs categorized as GR4, six were malignant; and of 123 AMs categorized as GR5, 118 were malignant. On a lesion-based analysis, the GI-RADS had a sensitivity, a specificity, and an accuracy of 92.9%, 97.5%, and 95.7%, respectively, when regarding only those AMs classified as GR5 for predicting malignancy. Considering combined GR4 and GR5 as a predictor for malignancy, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of GI-RADS were 97.6%, 93.9%, and 95.4%, respectively. The IRA of the GI-RADS category was very good (κ = 0.896). The best cutoff value for predicting malignant AMs was >GR3.
conclusionsThe GI-RADS is very valuable for improving US structural reports. KEY POINTS: • There is still a lack of a standard in the assessment of AMs. • GI-RADS is very valuable for improving US structural reports of AMs. • GI-RADS criteria are easy and work at least as well as IOTA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30993433What 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.