Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37046525›Full record

ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2023

Comparison of Ultrasound Scores in Differentiating between Benign and Malignant Adnexal Masses.

Mar Pelayo, Irene Pelayo-Delgado, Javier Sancho-Sauco, Javier Sanchez-Zurdo, Leopoldo Abarca-Martinez, Virginia Corraliza-Galán, Carmen Martin-Gromaz, María Jesús Pablos-Antona, Julia Zurita-Calvo, Juan Luis Alcázar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

10 authors.

Mar PelayoDepartment of Radiology, Hospital HM Puerta del Sur, 28938 Móstoles, Spain.
Irene Pelayo-DelgadoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital Ramon y Cajal, 28034 Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-3532-5265
Javier Sancho-SaucoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital Ramon y Cajal, 28034 Madrid, Spain.
Javier Sanchez-ZurdoInsight Technology Solutions, 28108 Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0009-0008-3812-0848
Leopoldo Abarca-MartinezDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital Ramon y Cajal, 28034 Madrid, Spain.
Virginia Corraliza-GalánDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital Ramon y Cajal, 28034 Madrid, Spain.
Carmen Martin-GromazDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital Ramon y Cajal, 28034 Madrid, Spain.
María Jesús Pablos-AntonaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital Ramon y Cajal, 28034 Madrid, Spain.
Julia Zurita-CalvoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital Ramon y Cajal, 28034 Madrid, Spain.
Juan Luis AlcázarDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, 31008 Pamplona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-9700-0853

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Subjective ultrasound assessment by an expert examiner is meant to be the best option for the differentiation between benign and malignant adnexal masses. Different ultrasound scores can help in the classification, but whether one of them is significantly better than others is still a matter of debate. The main aim of this work is to compare the diagnostic performance of some of these scores in the evaluation of adnexal masses in the same set of patients. This is a retrospective study of a consecutive series of women diagnosed as having a persistent adnexal mass and managed surgically. Ultrasound characteristics were analyzed according to IOTA criteria. Masses were classified according to the subjective impression of the sonographer and other ultrasound scores (IOTA simple rules -SR-, IOTA simple rules risk assessment -SRRA-, O-RADS classification, and ADNEX model -with and without CA125 value-). A total of 122 women were included. Sixty-two women were postmenopausal (50.8%). Eighty-one women had a benign mass (66.4%), and 41 (33.6%) had a malignant tumor. The sensitivity of subjective assessment, IOTA SR, IOTA SRRA, and ADNEX model with or without CA125 and O-RADS was 87.8%, 66.7%, 78.1%, 95.1%, 87.8%, and 90.2%, respectively. The specificity for these approaches was 69.1%, 89.2%, 72.8%, 74.1%, 67.9%, and 60.5%, respectively. All methods with similar AUC (0.81, 0.78, 0.80, 0.88, 0.84, and 0.75, respectively). We concluded that IOTA SR, IOTA SRRA, and ADNEX models with or without CA125 and O-RADS can help in the differentiation of benign and malignant masses, and their performance is similar to the subjective assessment of an experienced sonographer.

Indexed as

adnexal massesADNEX modelCA125diagnosisIOTA simple rulesIOTA simple rules risk assessmentO-RADStransvaginal ultrasound

Identifiers

PMID37046525
PMCPMC10093240

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.