Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38343788›Full record

ArticleJournal of ultrasonography2024

Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm and Pelvic Mass Score for the prediction of malignant ovarian tumors: a prospective comparative study.

Mohamed A Ali, Mohamed S Sweed, Eman A NasrElDin, Walaa E Ahmed, Gihan E ElHawwary

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of ultrasonography, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mohamed A AliDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2917-9628
Mohamed S SweedDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1221-9600
Eman A NasrElDinDepartment of Radiodiagnosis, Faculty of Medicine, Helwan University, Cairo, Egypt.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6993-5603
Walaa E AhmedDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Helwan University, Cairo, Egypt.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3785-6027
Gihan E ElHawwaryDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0848-405X
Ain Shams University · EGHelwan University · EG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aim: Ovarian cancer is the seventh most common female cancer worldwide. Nevertheless, there is no available universal screening method for malignant ovarian masses. This study compares the value of the Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) and Pelvic Mass Score (PMS) scoring systems in the diagnosis of malignant ovarian masses. Material and methods: This prospective comparative study was conducted from March 2021 until April 2022. A total of 258 women diagnosed with ovarian mass and eligible for surgical intervention according to institutional guidelines were enrolled in the study. Ultrasound was performed for the assessment of masses, ascites and metastases, also color flow Doppler was done to measure the resistance index of the mass vasculature. Preoperative venous blood samples were collected to measure CA 125 and HE4. PMS and ROMA scoring systems were calculated for each patient. All women were subjected to a surgical intervention (according to applicable institutional guidelines), using either open or laparoscopic techniques. Histopathological examination of the removed specimens was done, and in line with the recognized gold standard, the results were compared with the pre-operative diagnosis of both scoring systems. Results: Both PMS and ROMA showed a high predictive probability for ovarian malignancies (AUC = 0.93, sensitivity = 83.3%, specificity = 90.37%; AUC = 0.91, sensitivity = 84.4%, specificity = 95.56%, respectively), yet no statistical significant difference was found between the two scoring systems ( Conclusions: Both PMS and ROMA seem to be promising scoring systems for discriminating benign from malignant ovarian masses, but more research is needed to determine the optimum diagnostic pathway, especially one yielding the least false-negative results.

Indexed as

biomarkers tumorCA 125 antigenDoppler ultrasonographyultrasonographyuovarian neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID38343788
PMCPMC10850940
OpenAlexW4391441063

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.