ArticlePrzeglad menopauzalny = Menopause review2022
Morphological parameters of ovarian masses and accuracy of the risk of malignancy index in diagnosing ovarian malignancy.
Article in Przeglad menopauzalny = Menopause review, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Relation between vitamin D and adolescents' serum prolactin.Przeglad menopauzalny = Menopause review · 2023Article
- Vitamin D and vitamin D receptor polymorphism in Asian adolescents with primary dysmenorrhea.BMC women's health · 2023Article
- Accuracy of the risk of malignancy index-I in diagnosing ovarian malignancy in menopausal women.Przeglad menopauzalny = Menopause review · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: To detect the morphological parameters of ovarian masses and the accuracy of the risk of mali-gnancy index (RMI) in diagnosing ovarian malignancy. Material and methods: 264 women in 3 groups (reproductive, premenopausal, and postmenopausal) presented with ovarian masses and scheduled for surgery were included in this study. The participants' preoperative RMI was compared to the postoperative histology (gold standard) to detect the accuracy of RMI in diagnosing ovarian malignancy. Results: The incidence of malignant and benign ovarian tumours in the reproductive group was 9.1% and 90.9%, respectively, while it was 35.2% and 64.8%, respectively, in the premenopausal group, and 35.2%, and 64.8%, respectively, in the postmenopausal group. The incidence of malignant ovarian tumours was significantly higher in the premenopausal (35.2%) and postmenopausal (35.2%) groups compared to the reproductive group (9.1%), ( Conclusions: The multimodal RMI is an effective tool for primary evaluation of suspected ovarian masses. Risk malignancy index at cut-off value > 247.5 had the best performance (82.9% sensitivity, 100% specificity, 100% PPV, and 98.1% NPV) in diagnosing ovarian malignancy in the 3 studied groups. There was significant positive correlation between participants' age, and RMI, and between participants' CA-125 and RMI, in the studied malignant ovarian tumours.
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.