SynthesisPloS one2023
Diagnostic accuracy of the Copenhagen Index in ovarian malignancy: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Future theranostic strategies: emerging ovarian cancer biomarkers to bridge the gap between diagnosis and treatment.Frontiers in drug delivery · 2024Review
- Current and Emerging Strategies for Tubo-Ovarian Cancer Diagnostics.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the diagnostic value of the Copenhagen index for ovarian malignancy.
methodsPubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, Embase, CBM, CNKI, and WanFang databases were searched throughout June 2021. Statistical analyses were performed using Stata 12, Meta-DiSc, and RevMan 5.3. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio were calculated, the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was drawn, and the area under the curve was calculated.
resultsTen articles, including 11 studies with a total of 5266 patients, were included. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio were 0.82 [95% CI (0.80-0.83)], 0.88 [95% CI (0.87-0.89)], and 57.31 [95% CI (32.84-100.02)], respectively. The area under the summary receiver operating characteristics curve and the Q index were 0.9545 and 0.8966, respectively.
conclusionOur systematic review shows that the sensitivity and specificity of the Copenhagen index are high enough for it to be used in a clinical setting to provide accurate ovarian cancer diagnosis without considering menopausal status.
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.