ArticleUltrasonography (Seoul, Korea)2022
The learning curve and difficult points of the O-RADS ultrasound risk stratification system in 54 trainees.
Article in Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Inter-reader reliability of Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System US: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Pooled it
- Construction of a nomogram model for predicting benignity and malignancy in adnexal masses.Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea) · 2026Article
- A Simple O-RADS-Based Ultrasound Scoring System for Risk Stratification of Ovarian Cystic Lesions: A Multicenter Study.International journal of women's health · 2026Article
- Exploratory study on the enhancement of O-RADS application effectiveness for novice ultrasonographers via deep learning.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2024Article
- Article
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
purposeThis study aimed to evaluate the learning curve and explore the difficult points of the Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) ultrasound risk stratification system.
methodsOne hundred adnexal masses (AMs) were randomly selected for five tests as training data. Two experienced trainers had an inter-rater agreement of 0.95 for the O-RADS scores. Fifty-four trainees (26 level I practitioners [group 1], 17 level II practitioners [group 2], and 11 experienced level II practitioners [group 3]) attended the training. Every trainee received assessment and feedback after 20 scored cases. The outcomes of the five tests were compared among the three groups using repeated-measurements analysis of variance.
resultsOf the 100 AMs, 52 were pathologically benign and 48 were malignant; the O-RADS scores were 2, 3, 4, and 5 in 22, 11, 48, and 19 AMs, respectively. The between-subjects effects test showed no significant differences between groups 1, 2, and 3 for the five tests (P=0.501). For each group, the differences among the five tests were significant (P<0.001, P=0.006, and P=0.044 for groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively). Test 2 was the worst. In 23 cases, more than 40% of trainees gave incorrect answers, which mainly related to classic benign lesions, the color flow score, and solid-appearing masses.
conclusionAfter training, junior doctors at different levels can reach a coincident O-RADS ultrasound risk stratification. The difficulties primarily related to subjective judgments of classic benign lesions, the color flow score, and solid-appearing masses. More experience is needed to improve the applicability of the system.
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.