ArticleInternational journal of general medicine2021
Evaluation of the Diagnostic Value of the Ultrasound ADNEX Model for Benign and Malignant Ovarian Tumors.
Article in International journal of general medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Comparison of ADNEX Model with GI-RADS Ultrasound Scoring System in Evaluation of Adnexal Mass.Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India · 2025Article
- Quality of Life and Anxiety Status of Patients with Ovarian Tumor Undergoing Enhanced Recovery after Surgery.Actas espanolas de psiquiatria · 2024Article
- ADNEX risk prediction model for diagnosis of ovarian cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of external validation studies.BMJ medicine · 2024Article
- Comparison of Ultrasound Scores in Differentiating between Benign and Malignant Adnexal Masses.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Performance of IOTA Simple Rules Risks, ADNEX Model, Subjective Assessment Compared to CA125 and HE4 with ROMA Algorithm in Discriminating between Benign, Borderline and Stage I Malignant Adnexal Lesions.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Comparison of ultrasound-based ADNEX model with magnetic resonance imaging for discriminating adnexal masses: a multi-center study.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Diagnostic Performance of Ultrasound-Based International Ovarian Tumor Analysis Simple Rules and Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa Model for Predicting Malignancy in Women with Ovarian Tumors: A Prospective Cohort Study.Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.) · 2023Article
- Review
- Performance of the IOTA ADNEX model combined with HE4 for identifying early-stage ovarian cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the diagnostic performance of the ADNEX model in the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis diagnostic models for ovarian tumors and further explore its application value in the staging of ovarian tumors.
methodsA total of 224 patients who underwent ultrasound for evaluation of adnexal masses and were treated surgically owing to adnexal masses from January 2018 to June 2020 in our hospital were selected for research on the diagnostic accuracy of the ADNEX model. The clinical information and ultrasonographic findings of the patients were collected, and the pathological diagnosis was taken as the gold standard. According to the ADNEX model, the ovarian tumors were divided into five subtypes: benign and borderline, stage I, stage II-IV, and metastatic cancer. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, diagnostic odds ratio, and area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) of the ADNEX model were calculated.
resultsOf the 224 patients, 119 (53.1%) developed benign tumors and 105 (46.9%) had malignant tumors. When the cut-off value for malignancy risk was 10%, the ADNEX model including CA 125 achieved a sensitivity of 94.3% (95% CI: 88.0-97.9%), specificity of 74.0% (95% CI: 65.1-81.6%), positive predictive value of 76.2% (95% CI: 70.2-81.3%), negative predictive value of 93.6% (95% CI: 87.0-97.0%), diagnostic odds ratio of 45.25, and an AUC of 0.94 (95% CI: 0.90-0.97) for differentiating between benign and malignant ovarian tumors. The AUC in the model excluding CA 125 was 0.93 (95% CI: 0.89-0.96), but the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.20). The accuracy of the ADNEX model for the diagnosis of ovarian tumors of all subtypes exceeds 80% when CA 125 measurements were included in the application, but the sensitivity for diagnosing borderline, stage I, and metastatic ovarian tumors was only 60.0% (95% CI:36.1-80.9%), 28.6% (95% CI:8.4-58.1%) and 45.5% (95% CI:16.7-76.6%).
conclusionThe ADNEX model shows good diagnostic performance in differentiating between benign and malignant ovarian tumors. The model has a certain clinical value in the diagnosis of all subtypes of ovarian tumors, but the sensitivity is unsatisfactory for the diagnosis of borderline, stage I, and metastatic ovarian tumors and needs to be verified.
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.