ArticleObstetrics & gynecology science2024
Validity of ultrasound with color Doppler to differentiate between benign and malignant ovarian tumours.
Article in Obstetrics & gynecology science, 2024. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prognostic and predictive roles of microsatellite instability and mismatch repair deficiency in early-stage endometrial cancer: a structured narrative review.Obstetrics & gynecology science · 2026Review
- Diagnostic performance of serum CA-125 and ultrasonography in ovarian tumour differentiation.Bioinformation · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the utility of ultrasound and color Doppler and the Accuracy of International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) group classification in the preoperative evaluation of ovarian neoplasms to assess benign or malignant histopathology in the diagnosis of ovarian tumors.
methodsThis observational longitudinal prospective analysis of 60 patients was performed over a period of 2 years (2017- 2019). The mean age of the patients was 43.75 years. Ultrasonography of ovarian masses were evaluated, and cancer antigen-125 (CA-125) levels were evaluated. Based on the IOTA classification, the B and M features of adnexal masses were studied. Color Doppler imaging was performed to evaluate the patterns of vascularity and indices.
resultsSixty patients with 35 benign, 23 malignant, and two borderline lesions were included in the study. In malignant lesions, 17 women (73.9%) were above the age of 45. The CA-125 cut off was ≥35 internatioal units/mL. Based on the IOTA classification, 27/35 (77.1%) benign cases, were correctly identified as benign, 6/35 (17.1%) benign cases were incorrectly identified as malignant, and two (5.7%) were found to be inconclusive. In the malignant group, 17 of the 23 patients were identified as having malignancy. Color Doppler showed three (18.8%) benign tumors had a pulsatality index (PI) of <0.8 and 21 malignant tumors had a PI of <0.8. Four benign tumors had an resistive index (RI) of <0.6 and 100% of malignant tumors had an RI <0.6.
conclusionThe IOTA classification is a reliable scoring system for adnexal masses, and color Doppler can help to minimize interobserver variation.
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.