ArticleCancers2022
The Discrepancy between Preoperative Tumor Markers and Imaging Outcomes in Predicting Ovarian Malignancy.
Article in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- An algorithm for the pre-operative differentiation of benign ovarian tumours based on magnetic resonance imaging interpretation in a regional core hospital: A retrospective study.European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Preoperative tumor markers and imaging often differ in predicting whether an ovarian tumor is malignant. Therefore, we evaluated the correlation between the predictive values of imaging and tumor markers for diagnosing ovarian tumors, especially when there were discrepancies between the two. We enrolled 1047 patients with ovarian tumors. The predictive values and concordance rates between the preoperative risk of ovarian malignancy algorithm (ROMA) and imaging, including CT and MRI, were evaluated. Diagnoses of 561 CT (77.9%) and 322 MRI group (69.2%) participants were consistent with the ROMA. Among them, 96.4% of the CT (541/561) and 92.5% of the MRI (298/322) group predicted an accurate diagnosis. In contrast, 67.3% (101/150) of CT and 75.2% (100/133) of MRI cases accurately predicted the diagnosis in cases with discrepancies between ROMA and CT or MRI; a total of 32% (48/150) of the CT and 25.5% (34/133) of the MRI group showed an accurate ROMA diagnosis in cases with discrepancies between ROMA and imaging. In the event of a discrepancy between ROMA and imaging when ovarian tumor malignancy prediction, the question is which method should take precedence. This study demonstrates that MRI has the greatest diagnostic accuracy, followed by CT and ROMA. It is also important to understand underlying diseases and benign conditions and rare histopathologies of malignant tumors.
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.