Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35747594›Full record

ArticleMolecular and clinical oncology2022

Diagnostic value of risk of malignancy index in the clinical evaluation of ovarian mass.

Ali Huwidi, Afaf Abobrege, Mourad Assidi, Abdelbaset Buhmeida, Eramah Ermiah

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular and clinical oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06348784 (Assessment of Different Neoplasias in the Adenxa Model Versus Risk of Malignancy Index as a Tool for Predicting Ovarian Malignancy in Postmenopausal Ovarian Cysts), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT06348784 completednot on this map

Assessment of Different Neoplasias in the Adenxa Model Versus Risk of Malignancy Index as a Tool for Predicting Ovarian Malignancy in Postmenopausal Ovarian Cysts

TypeobservationalSponsorAin Shams Maternity HospitalRan2022 to 2023Enrolled50ConditionsEarly Detection of Ovarian CancerArmsAssesment of Different NEoplasias in the adenexa model, Risk of malignancy index, Histopathologic examination
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

5 authors.

Ali HuwidiDepartment of Gynaecology, National Cancer Institute, Misurata University, Misurata 051, Libya.
Afaf AbobregeDepartment of Gynaecology, National Cancer Institute, Misurata University, Misurata 051, Libya.
Mourad AssidiCenter of Excellence in Genomic Medicine Research, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Makkah 21589, Saudi Arabia.
Abdelbaset BuhmeidaCenter of Excellence in Genomic Medicine Research, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Makkah 21589, Saudi Arabia.
Eramah ErmiahMedical Research Unit, National Cancer Institute, Misurata 051, Libya.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the present study, the Risk Malignancy Index (RMI) was calculated based on menopausal status, ultrasound (US) findings and serum biological cancer antigen 125 (CA-125) levels as a scoring system in Libyan females with ovarian masses (OMs) to differentiate between benign and malignant tumors. A total of 51 females with OMs referred to the Gynaecology Department of the National Cancer Institute in Misurata (Libya) between January 2019 and December 2020 were retrospectively reviewed for diagnostic testing. Clinicopathological and demographic data were obtained from patient records. A cut-off point of RMI=200 was used to differentiate between benign and malignant tumors. The mean age of the patients was 47 years (range, 19-90 years) and 60% of the patients were premenopausal. Examination of the four RMI indices and disease status indicated that the association with the US score (P<0.0001) and with CA-125 (P=0.017) was highly significant. However, the age at diagnosis and menopausal status did not have any significant association with the disease status. The RMI with a cut-off point of 200 had a sensitivity and specificity of 87.5 and 90.7%, respectively, and a positive and negative predictive value of 63.6 and 97.5%, respectively. The association between the RMI and disease status was highly significant (P<0.0001). In conclusion, the RMI appears to be a reliable, simple and cost-effective tool for clinical differentiation between benign and malignant OMs. This may help to improve the optimal diagnosis and planning of an individualized treatment strategy. However, given the small sample size of the cohort, further validation using larger cohorts in other settings is recommended.

Indexed as

diagnosisovarian massrisk of malignancy index

Identifiers

PMID35747594
PMCPMC9204318

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.