SynthesisBMJ open2021
Comparison of conventional, doppler and contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in differential diagnosis of ovarian masses: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound for the depth of myometrial infiltration in early endometrial cancer: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Ultrasound Techniques for Suspected Malignant Pleural Effusion and Nonexpandable Lung.CHEST pulmonary · 2026Review
- Early and accurate detection of ovarian cancer by profiling cell-free mitochondrial DNA fragmentomics in multi-ethnic population.Genome medicine · 2026Article
- The Ultrasonography Characteristics of Borderline Ovarian Tumor Subtypes.Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine · 2025Article
- 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
- Imaging Evaluation of Ovarian Masses in a Pediatric Population: A Comprehensive Overview.Cancers · 2025Review
- Performance of grayscale combined with contrast-enhanced ultrasound in differentiating benign and malignant pediatric ovarian masses.European radiology · 2025Article
- Improving Ovarian Cancer Detection: Can CEUS Refine the O-RADS System?Radiology. Imaging cancer · 2025Article
- Clinicopathological and imaging features of struma ovarii: a retrospective study.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- A modified CEUS risk stratification model for adnexal masses with solid components: prospective multicenter study and risk adjustment.European radiology · 2024Article
- Early Detection of Ovarian Cancer.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine · 2023Review
- Prognostic value of the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio in laryngeal cancer: What should we expect from a meta-analysis?Frontiers in oncology · 2022Review
- Diagnostic Value of Two-Dimensional Transvaginal Ultrasound Combined with Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound in Ovarian Cancer.Frontiers in surgery · 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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the value of conventional, Doppler and contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) (conventional ultrasonography (US), Doppler US and CEUS) for diagnosing ovarian cancer.
designSystematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were conducted for studies published until October 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies assessed the diagnostic value of conventional US, Doppler US or CEUS for detecting ovarian cancer, with no restrictions placed on published language and status. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: The study selection and data extraction were performed by two independent authors. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio (PLR and NLR), diagnostic OR (DOR) and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were pooled using the bivariate generalised linear mixed model and random effects model.
resultsThe meta-analysis included 72 studies and involved 9296 women who presented with ovarian masses. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, DOR and AUC for conventional US were 0.91 (95% CI: 0.87 to 0.94) and 0.87 (95% CI: 0.82 to 0.91), 6.87 (95% CI: 4.98 to 9.49) and 0.10 (95% CI: 0.07 to 0.15), 57.52 (95% CI: 36.64 to 90.28) and 0.95 (95% CI: 0.93 to 0.97), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, DOR and AUC for Doppler US were 0.93 (95% CI: 0.91 to 0.95) and 0.85 (95% CI: 0.80 to 0.89), 6.10 (95% CI: 4.59 to 8.11) and 0.08 (95% CI: 0.06 to 0.11), 61.76 (95% CI: 39.99 to 95.37) and 0.96 (95% CI: 0.94 to 0.97), respectively. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, DOR and AUC for CEUS were 0.97 (95% CI: 0.92 to 0.99) and 0.92 (95% CI: 0.85 to 0.95), 11.47 (95% CI: 6.52 to 20.17) and 0.03 (95% CI: 0.01 to 0.09), 152.11 (95% CI: 77.77 to 297.51) and 0.99 (95% CI: 0.97 to 0.99), respectively. Moreover, the AUC values for conventional US (p=0.002) and Doppler US (p=0.005) were inferior to those of CEUS.
conclusionsConventional US, Doppler US and CEUS have a relatively high differential diagnostic value for differentiating between benign and malignant ovarian masses. The diagnostic performance of CEUS was superior to that of conventional US and Doppler US.
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.