Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37430161›Full record

ArticleJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2023

Effect of differences in O-RADS lexicon interpretation between senior and junior sonologists on O-RADS classification and diagnostic performance.

Ya Yang, Hongyan Wang, Zhenzhen Liu, Na Su, Luying Gao, Xixi Tao, Rui Zhang, Yang Gu, Li Ma, Ruojiao Wang and 9 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

19 authors.

Ya YangDepartment of Ultrasound, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, No.1 Shuai Fu Yuan, Dong Cheng District, Beijing, 100730, China.
Hongyan WangDepartment of Ultrasound, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, No.1 Shuai Fu Yuan, Dong Cheng District, Beijing, 100730, China. whychina@126.com.
Zhenzhen LiuDepartment of Ultrasound, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, No.1 Shuai Fu Yuan, Dong Cheng District, Beijing, 100730, China.
Na SuDepartment of Ultrasound, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, No.1 Shuai Fu Yuan, Dong Cheng District, Beijing, 100730, China.
Luying GaoDepartment of Ultrasound, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, No.1 Shuai Fu Yuan, Dong Cheng District, Beijing, 100730, China.
Xixi TaoDepartment of Ultrasound, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, No.1 Shuai Fu Yuan, Dong Cheng District, Beijing, 100730, China.
Rui ZhangDepartment of Ultrasound, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, No.1 Shuai Fu Yuan, Dong Cheng District, Beijing, 100730, China.
Yang GuDepartment of Ultrasound, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, No.1 Shuai Fu Yuan, Dong Cheng District, Beijing, 100730, China.
Li MaDepartment of Ultrasound, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, No.1 Shuai Fu Yuan, Dong Cheng District, Beijing, 100730, China.
Ruojiao WangDepartment of Ultrasound, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, No.1 Shuai Fu Yuan, Dong Cheng District, Beijing, 100730, China.
Wen XuDepartment of Ultrasound, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, No.1 Shuai Fu Yuan, Dong Cheng District, Beijing, 100730, China.
Yuhuan XieDepartment of Ultrasound, Dongguan People's Hospital Affiliated to Southern Medical University, Dongguan, China.
Wenjun ZhangDepartment of Ultrasound, Taihe Hospital, the Affiliated to Hubei University of Medicine, Shiyan, China.
Heng ZhangDepartment of Ultrasound, Zhuhai People's Hospital, Zhuhai, China.
Gaiqin XueDepartment of Ultrasound, Shanxi Provincial Cancer Hospital, Shanxi, China.
Tong RuPrenatal Diagnosis Center, Drum Tower Hospital, Nanjing University Medical School, Nanjing, China.
Qing DaiDepartment of Ultrasound, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, No.1 Shuai Fu Yuan, Dong Cheng District, Beijing, 100730, China.
Jianchu LiDepartment of Ultrasound, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, No.1 Shuai Fu Yuan, Dong Cheng District, Beijing, 100730, China.
Yuxin JiangDepartment of Ultrasound, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, No.1 Shuai Fu Yuan, Dong Cheng District, Beijing, 100730, China.

Funding

the International Health Exchange and Cooperation Center ihecc2020C20032the National High Level Hospital Clinical Research Funding 2022-PUMCH-B-064
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo assess the consistency of Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) lexicon interpretation between senior and junior sonologists and to investigate its impact on O-RADS classification and diagnostic performance.

methodsWe prospectively studied 620 patients with adnexal lesions, all of whom underwent transvaginal or transrectal ultrasound performed by a senior sonologist (R1) who selected the O-RADS lexicon description and O-RADS category for the lesion after the examination. Meanwhile, the junior sonologist (R2) analyzed the images retained by R1 and divided the lesion in the same way. Pathological findings were used as a reference standard. kappa (к) statistics were used to assess the interobserver agreement.

resultsOf the 620 adnexal lesions, 532 were benign and 88 were malignant. When using the O-RADS lexicon, R1 and R2 had almost perfect agreement regarding lesion category, external contour of solid lesions, presence of papillary inside cystic lesions, and fluid echogenicity (к: 0.81-1.00). Substantial agreement in solid components, acoustic shadow, vascularity and O-RADS categories (к: 0.61-0.80). Consistency in classifying classic benign lesions in the O-RADS category was only moderate (к = 0.535). No significant difference in diagnostic performance between them using O-RADS (P = 0.1211).

conclusionThere was good agreement between senior and junior sonologists in the interpretation of the O-RADS lexicon and in the classification of O-RADS, except for a moderate agreement in the interpretation and classification of classic benign lesions. Differences in O-RADS category delineation between sonologists had no significant effect on the diagnostic performance of O-RADS.

Indexed as

Observer VariationHumansRetrospective StudiesUltrasonographyAdnexal lesionsDiagnosisInter-observer agreementOvarian-adnexal reporting and data systemUltrasound

Identifiers

PMID37430161
PMCPMC10465637

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.