ArticleEuropean radiology2021
Comparison of O-RADS, GI-RADS, and IOTA simple rules regarding malignancy rate, validity, and reliability for diagnosis of adnexal masses.
Article in European radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers, 5 of them syntheses 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
62 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 115 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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 the Diagnostic Performance of Ovarian Adnexal Reporting Data System (O-RADS) With IOTA Simple Rules and ADNEX Model for Classifying Adnexal Masses: A Head-To-Head Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical ultrasound : JCU · 2025Pooled it
- Inter-reader reliability of Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System US: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Pooled 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
- Comparison of O-RADS with the ADNEX model and IOTA SR for risk stratification of adnexal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Pooled it
- Diagnostic accuracy of a modified non-contrast O-RADS MRI scoring system: a retrospective study.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- Comparing and combining O-RADS ultrasound, serum CA125, and HE4 for the preoperative diagnosis of ovarian tumors.BMC medical imaging · 2026Article
- Ultrasonographic assessment of pediatric adnexal lesions: validation of the O-RADS system and development of a simplified C-CAS framework.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Analysis of the efficacy of adnexal mass diagnosis by senior and junior sonologists based on subjective diagnosis and O-RADS classification.BMC women's health · 2026Article
- Assessment of ultrasound ovarian-adnexal reporting & data system (O-RADS) for pediatric patients.Pediatric radiology · 2026Article
- Article
- A review of ovarian-adnexal reporting and data system and radiomics in ovarian cancer: focus on ultrasound applications.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Construction and validation of a preoperative malignancy risk prediction model for ovarian-adnexal masses based on clinical and ultrasonographic features.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Diagnostic performance and interobserver agreement of O-RADS US v2022 and its combination with serum biomarkers in surgically treated epithelial ovarian-adnexal masses.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Integrating O-RADS US v2022, CEUS, and CA125 to enhance the diagnostic differentiation of ovarian masses: development of the OCC-US model.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2025Article
- O-RADS US versus IOTA simple rules in the diagnosis of benign and malignant adnexal masses: a prospective study.BMC medical imaging · 2025Article
- Accurate prediction of benign and malignant adnexal tumors in surgical resection and conservative treatment: construction and external validation of a diagnostic model based on CEUS, HE4, and O-RADS US v2022 evaluation.Journal of ovarian research · 2025Article
- A nomogram combining clinical features, O-RADS US, and radiomics based on ultrasound imaging for diagnosing ovarian cancer.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Ovarian-Adnexal Imaging-Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) ultrasound version 2019: a prospective validation and comparison to updated version (v2022) in pathologically confirmed adnexal masses.European radiology · 2025Article
- Integrative deep learning and radiomics analysis for ovarian tumor classification and diagnosis: a multicenter large-sample comparative study.La Radiologia medica · 2025Article
2 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe American College of Radiology (ACR) recently published the ovarian-adnexal reporting and data system (O-RADS) to provide guidelines to physicians who interpret ultrasound (US) examinations of adnexal masses (AM). This study aimed to compare the O-RADS with two other well-established US classification systems for diagnosis of AM.
methodsThis retrospective multicenter study between May 2016 and December 2019 assessed consecutive women with AM detected by the US. Five experienced consultant radiologists independently categorized each AM according to O-RADS, gynecologic imaging reporting and data system (GI-RADS), and international ovarian tumor analysis (IOTA) simple rules. Pathology and adequate follow-up were used as reference standards for calculating the validity of three US classification systems for diagnosis of AM. Kappa statistics were used to assess the inter-reviewer agreement (IRA).
resultsA total of 609 women (mean age, 48 ± 13.7 years; range, 18-72 years) with 647 AM were included. Of the 647 AM, 178 were malignant and 469 were benign. Malignancy rates were comparable to recommended rates by previous literature in O-RADS and IOTA, but higher in GI-RADS. O-RADS had significantly higher sensitivity for malignancy than GI-RAD and IOTA (p = 0.003 and 0.0007, respectively), but non-significant slightly lower specificity (p > 0.05). O-RADS, GI-RADS, and IOTA showed similar overall IRA (κ = 0.77, 0.69, and 0.63, respectively) with a tendency toward higher IRA with O-RADS than with GI-RADS and IOTA.
conclusionsO-RADS compares favorably with GI-RADS and IOTA. O-RADS had higher sensitivity than GI-RADS and IOTA simple rules with relatively similar specificity and reliability. KEY POINTS: • The malignancy rates were comparable to recommended rates by previous literature in O-RADS and IOTA, but higher in GI-RADS. • The O-RADS had significantly higher sensitivity for malignancy than GI-RADS and IOTA (96.8% vs 92.7% and 92.1%; p = 0.003 and 0.0007, respectively), but non-significant slightly lower specificity (92.8% vs 93.6% and 93.2%, respectively; p > 0.05). • The O-RADS, GI-RADS, and IOTA showed similar overall inter-reviewer agreement (IRA) (κ = 0.77, 0.69, and 0.63, respectively), with a tendency toward higher IRA with O-RADS than with GI-RADS and IOTA.
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.