Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35196832›Full record

ArticleUltrasonography (Seoul, Korea)2022

A comparison of the diagnostic performance of the O-RADS, RMI4, IOTA LR2, and IOTA SR systems by senior and junior doctors.

Yuyang Guo, Baihua Zhao, Shan Zhou, Lieming Wen, Jieyu Liu, Yaqian Fu, Fang Xu, Minghui Liu

Open access · diamondAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

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 31 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
6.6field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Yuyang GuoDepartment of Ultrasound Diagnosis, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Baihua ZhaoDepartment of Ultrasound Diagnosis, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Shan ZhouDepartment of Ultrasound Diagnosis, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Lieming WenDepartment of Ultrasound Diagnosis, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Jieyu LiuDepartment of Ultrasound Diagnosis, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Yaqian FuHealth Management Center, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Fang XuDepartment of Ultrasonography, The First Hospital of Changsha, Changsha, China.
Minghui LiuDepartment of Ultrasound Diagnosis, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Central South University · CNThe First Hospital of Changsha · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study compared the diagnostic performance of the Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS), the Risk of Malignancy Index 4 (RMI4), the International Ovarian of Tumor Analysis Logistic Regression Model 2 (IOTA LR2), and the IOTA Simple Rules (IOTA SR) in predicting the malignancy of adnexal masses (AMs).

methodsThis retrospective study included 575 women with AMs between 2017 and 2020. All clinical messages, ultrasound images, and pathological findings were collected. Two senior doctors (group I) and two junior doctors (group II) used the four systems to classify AMs. The postoperative pathological diagnosis was used as the gold standard to evaluate the diagnostic efficiency. A receiver operating characteristic curve was used to test the diagnostic performance. The interrater agreement between the two groups was tested using kappa values.

resultsOf all 592 AMs, 447 (75.5%) were benign, 123 (20.8%) were malignant, and 22 (3.7%) were borderline. The intergroup consistency test yielded kappa values of 0.71, 0.92, 0.68, and 0.77 for the O-RADS, RMI4, IOTA LR2, and IOTA SR, respectively. To predict malignant lesions, the areas under the curve of the O-RADS, RMI4, IOTA LR2, and IOTA SR systems were 0.90, 0.89, 0.90, and 0.86 for group I and 0.89, 0.87, 0.88, and 0.84 for group II, respectively. The O-RADS had the highest sensitivity (91.0% in group I and 84.8% in group II).

conclusionThe four diagnostic systems could compensate for junior doctors' inexperience in predicting malignant adnexal lesions. The O-RADS performed best and showed the highest sensitivity.

Indexed as

Adnexal massesIOTAO-RADSRMIUltrasonography

Identifiers

PMID35196832
PMCPMC9262660
OpenAlexW4210765796

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.