Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39841229›Full record

SynthesisAbdominal radiology (New York)2025

Inter-reader reliability of Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System US: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Sang Min Bae, Dong Hwan Kim, Ji Hun Kang

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Sang Min BaeHanyang University Guri Hospital, Guri-si, Korea, Republic of.
Dong Hwan KimAsan Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Ji Hun KangHanyang University Guri Hospital, Guri-si, Korea, Republic of. jihunkang@hanyang.ac.kr.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeOvarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) US provides a standardized lexicon for ovarian and adnexal lesions, facilitating risk stratification based on morphological features for malignancy assessment, which is essential for proper management. However, systematic determination of inter-reader reliability in O-RADS US categorization remains unexplored. This study aimed to systematically determine the inter-reader reliability of O-RADS US categorization and identify the factors that affect it.

methodsOriginal articles reporting the inter-reader reliability of O-RADS US in lesion categorization were identified in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases from January 2018 to December 2023. DerSimonian-Laird random-effects models were used to determine the meta-analytic pooled inter-reader reliability of the O-RADS US categorization. Subgroup meta-regression analysis was performed to identify the factors causing study heterogeneity.

resultsFourteen original articles with 5139 ovarian and adnexal lesions were included. The inter-reader reliability of O-RADS US in lesion categorization ranged from 0.71 to 0.99, with a meta-analytic pooled estimate of 0.83 (95% CI, 0.78-0.88), indicating almost perfect reliability. Substantial study heterogeneity was observed in the inter-reader reliability of the O-RADS US categorization (I

conclusionThe O-RADS US risk stratification system demonstrated almost perfect inter-reader reliability in lesion categorization. Our results highlight the importance of targeted training and descriptor simplification to improve inter-reader reliability and clinical adoption.

Indexed as

Adnexal DiseasesOvarian NeoplasmsFemaleHumansObserver VariationOvaryReproducibility of ResultsUltrasonographyAdnexa uteriMeta-analysisOvarian neoplasmsOvaryUltrasonography

Identifiers

PMID39841229

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.