ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2024
Ultrasonographic diagnosis of adnexal masses: interobserver agreement in the interpretation of videos, using IOTA terminology.
Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Have Iota Simple Rules the Same Diagnostic Performance When Used by Nonexpert Examiners as Compared to Expert Examiners? Systematic Review and Meta-Analisis.Journal of clinical ultrasound : JCU · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAim of this study is to estimate interobserver agreement in classifying adnexal tumors using IOTA terms, simple rules and subjective assessment. In addition, we related observers' accuracy with their experience in gynecological ultrasonography and the year of IOTA certification.
methodsEleven observers with three different levels of experience evaluated videoclips of 70 adnexal masses, defining tumor type according to IOTA terms and definitions, classifying the mass using IOTA Simple rules and Subjective assessment as well as providing Color Score evaluation. Sensitivity, specificity and area under the ROC curve were calculated and the year of IOTA certification was related with operators' accuracy through Pearson correlation coefficient. Interobserver agreement was estimated calculating percentage of agreement, Fleiss kappa and Cohen's kappa.
resultsWe found a positive correlation between the year of IOTA certification and operators' accuracy (Pearson coefficient 0.694), especially among the observers with the least experience, the residents (p = 0.003). For tumor type classification, identification of papillary projections and classification of tumors using subjective assessment, agreement among all observers was moderate (Fleiss kappa 0.455, 0.552, and 0.476, respectively) and increased with the years of experience. Agreement in the application of Simple Rules was moderate in all examiners with IOTA certification, with Fleiss kappa in the range of (0.403, 0.498). For Color Score assignment interobserver agreement among all observers was fair (Cohen's kappa 0.380).
conclusionsEven among expert examiners, the results of adnexal lesion assessment can be inconsistent. Experience impacts on accuracy and agreement in subjective assessment, while the application of Simple Rules can mitigate the role of experience in interobserver agreement. The knowledge of IOTA models among residents seams to improve their diagnostic accuracy, showing the benefits of IOTA terminology for in training sonographers.
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.