Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37139467›Full record

ArticleWomen's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.)2023

Diagnostic Performance of Ultrasound-Based International Ovarian Tumor Analysis Simple Rules and Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa Model for Predicting Malignancy in Women with Ovarian Tumors: A Prospective Cohort Study.

Neha Rashmi, Sweta Singh, Jasmina Begum, Mukund Namdev Sable

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Integrating O-RADS US v2022, CEUS, and CA125 to enhance the diagnostic differentiation of ovarian masses: development of the OCC-US model.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2025
    Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Neha RashmiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9773-9201
Sweta SinghDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1206-2474
Jasmina BegumDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9580-2265
Mukund Namdev SableDepartment of Pathology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1547-8595
All India Institute of Medical Sciences Bhubaneswar · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Comparative performance of various ultrasound models in diagnosing ovarian lesions has not been adequately studied. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) simple rules and Assessment of Different NEoplasias in the adneXa (ADNEX) models in women with ovarian lesions. Methods: Women 18-80 years, with an ovarian lesion planned for surgery were recruited in this prospective observational cohort study. Preoperative risk stratification was done by both IOTA simple rules and the ADNEX model. The diagnostic performance of both models was estimated using histopathology as the gold standard. Results: A total of 90 women were recruited into the study. The IOTA simple rules were applicable to 77 (85.5%) participants and the ADNEX model on 100% women. Both the simple rules and the ADNEX model had good diagnostic performance. The sensitivity and specificity of the IOTA simple rules for predicting malignancy was 66.6% and 91%, while that of the ADNEXA model was 80% and 94%, respectively. The maximum diagnostic accuracy for prediction of both benign and malignant tumors was obtained when cancer antigen-125 (CA-125) was combined with the IOTA ADNEX model (91.0%), but for Stage I malignancy, the maximum diagnostic accuracy was for ADNEX without CA-125 (91.0%). Conclusion: Both the IOTA models have a good diagnostic accuracy and are of paramount importance in differentiating benign from malignant tumors and predicting the stage of the malignant disease.

Indexed as

ADNEX modelIOTAmalignancysimple rules

Identifiers

PMID37139467
PMCPMC10150711
OpenAlexW4367293627

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.