Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35763052›Full record

ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2022

Interobserver agreement between eight observers using IOTA simple rules and O-RADS lexicon descriptors for adnexal masses.

Neha Antil, Preethi R Raghu, Luyao Shen, Thodsawit Tiyarattanachai, Edwina M Chang, Craig W K Ferguson, Amanzo A Ho, Amelie M Lutz, Aladin J Mariano, L Nayeli Morimoto and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Neha AntilDepartment of Radiology, Stanford Hospital and Clinics, Stanford, CA, USA.
Preethi R RaghuDepartment of Radiology, University of CA - San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. Preethi.Raghu@ucsf.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1048-653X
Luyao ShenDepartment of Radiology, Stanford Hospital and Clinics, Stanford, CA, USA.
Thodsawit TiyarattanachaiDepartment of Radiology, Stanford Hospital and Clinics, Stanford, CA, USA.
Edwina M ChangDepartment of Radiology, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, San Jose, CA, USA.
Craig W K FergusonDepartment of Radiology, University of Alberta Hostpial, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Amanzo A HoDepartment of Radiology, Stanford Hospital and Clinics, Stanford, CA, USA.
Amelie M LutzDepartment of Radiology, Stanford Hospital and Clinics, Stanford, CA, USA.
Aladin J MarianoDepartment of Radiology, Stanford Hospital and Clinics, Stanford, CA, USA.
L Nayeli MorimotoDepartment of Radiology, Stanford Hospital and Clinics, Stanford, CA, USA.
Aya KamayaDepartment of Radiology, Stanford Hospital and Clinics, Stanford, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate interobserver agreement in assigning imaging features and classifying adnexal masses using the IOTA simple rules versus O-RADS lexicon and identify causes of discrepancy.

methodsPelvic ultrasound (US) examinations in 114 women with 118 adnexal masses were evaluated by eight radiologists blinded to the final diagnosis (4 attendings and 4 fellows) using IOTA simple rules and O-RADS lexicon. Each feature category was analyzed for interobserver agreement using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for ordinal variables and free marginal kappa for nominal variables. The two-tailed significance level (a) was set at 0.05.

resultsFor IOTA simple rules, interobserver agreement was almost perfect for three malignant lesion categories (M2-4) and substantial for the remaining two (M1, M5) with k-values of 0.80-0.82 and 0.68-0.69, respectively. Interobserver agreement was almost perfect for two benign feature categories (B2, B3), substantial for two (B4, B5) and moderate for one (B1) with k-values of 0.81-0.90, 0.69-0.70 and 0.60, respectively. For O-RADS, interobserver agreement was almost perfect for two out of ten feature categories (ascites and peritoneal nodules) with k-values of 0.89 and 0.97. Interobserver agreement ranged from fair to substantial for the remaining eight feature categories with k-values of 0.39-0.61. Fellows and attendings had ICC values of 0.725 and 0.517, respectively.

conclusionO-RADS had variable interobserver agreement with overall good agreement. IOTA simple rules had more uniform interobserver agreement with overall excellent agreement. Greater reader experience did not improve interobserver agreement with O-RADS.

Indexed as

Observer VariationAdnexal DiseasesAscitesFemaleGenital Neoplasms, FemaleHumansUltrasonographyAdnexalIOTAO-RADSOvarianPelvicUltrasound

Identifiers

PMID35763052
PMCPMC9388428

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.