Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35284306›Full record

ArticleGland surgery2022

Systematic review and meta-analysis of imaging differential diagnosis of benign and malignant ovarian tumors.

Wen-Huan Wang, Chang-Bao Zheng, Jin-Niao Gao, Shang-Shang Ren, Guo-Yan Nie, Zhi-Qun Li

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Gland surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Diagnostic imaging of adnexal masses in pregnancy.Obstetrics & gynecology science · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

6 authors.

Wen-Huan Wang *Department of Medical Imaging, Haikou Hospital of the Maternal and Child Health, Haikou, China.
Chang-Bao Zheng *Department of Medical Imaging, Hainan Cancer Hospital, Haikou, China.
Jin-Niao GaoDepartment of Traditional Chinese Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Hainan Medical University, Haikou, China.
Shang-Shang RenDepartment of Radiology, Central South University Xiangya School of Medicine Affiliated Haikou Hospital, Haikou, China.
Guo-Yan NieDepartment of Medical Imaging, Haikou Hospital of the Maternal and Child Health, Haikou, China.
Zhi-Qun LiDepartment of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Hainan Medical University, Haikou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: With the increasing incidence of gynecological ovarian tumors, the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant ovarian tumors is of great significance for subsequent treatment. Currently, ovarian examinations commonly use computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). This study sought to compare the value of CT and MRI in differentiating between benign and malignant ovarian tumors. Methods: The PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, and Weipu databases were searched for published articles using the following terms "CT" or "Computed Tomography" or "MRI" or "Magnetic Resonance imaging" and "ovarian cancer" or "ovarian tumor" or "ovarian neoplasm" or "adnexal mass" or "adnexal lesion". The articles were screened and the data were extracted based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies, and the network meta-analysis was performed by Stata 15.0. Results: The results showed that the overall sensitivity and specificity of CT were 0.79 [95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.70-0.87] and 0.87 (95% CI: 0.80-0.92), respectively. The overall sensitivity and specificity of MRI were 0.94 (95% CI: 0.91-0.95) and 0.91 (95% CI: 0.90-0.93), respectively. The area under the curve of the CT and MRI summary receiver operating characteristics were 0.9016 and 0.9764, respectively. The positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio of CT were 5.26 (95% CI: 2.78-9.93), 0.26 (95% CI: 0.13-0.50), and 22.19 (95% CI: 7.54-65.30), respectively. The positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio of MRI were 8.69 (95% CI: 5.06-14.92), 0.07 (95% CI: 0.04-0.13), and 146.19 (95% CI: 68.88-310.24), respectively. Conclusions: Compared to CT, MRI has a stronger ability to differentiate between benign and malignant ovarian tumors. It's a promising non-radiological imaging technique and a more favorable choice for patients with ovarian tumors. However, in the future, large-sample, multi-center prospective studies need to be conducted to compare the performance of MRI and CT in distinguishing between benign and malignant ovarian tumors.

Indexed as

computed tomography (CT)differential diagnosismagnetic resonance imaging (MRI)Ovarian tumor

Identifiers

PMID35284306
PMCPMC8899432

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.