Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40230492›Full record

ArticleGynecologic oncology reports2025

Adnexal mass referral patterns in Gynecologic Oncology.

Rusha Bajpai, Tammy Mundale, Natalia Gontarczyk Uczkowski, Amy Godecker, Stephen Rose

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Gynecologic oncology reports, 2025. 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
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  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.

Rusha BajpaiUniversity of Wisconsin, USA.
Tammy MundaleUniversity of Wisconsin, USA.
Natalia Gontarczyk UczkowskiUniversity of Wisconsin, USA.
Amy GodeckerUniversity of Wisconsin, USA.
Stephen RoseUniversity of Wisconsin, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: There is a perceived increase in adnexal mass referrals to Gynecologic Oncology that do not meet American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) referral criteria. There is little data regarding referral patterns to Gynecologic Oncology. Our primary objective is to determine the proportion of consults meeting ACOG referral criteria over an eleven year period. Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted for adnexal mass referrals between 2011 and 2021. Variables such as age, menopausal status, imaging findings, tumor markers, surgery and histopathologic diagnosis determined whether the initial consult met ACOG referral criteria. Results: A total of 864 new consults were reviewed, 84.7 % meeting ACOG referral criteria. When broken down by year, 82.0 %, 78.9 %, 82.2 %, 86.1 %, 92.6 % met criteria for the years 2011, 2012, 2016, 2018, 2021, respectively. There was a significantly higher proportion of consults meeting referral criteria in 2021 compared to 2011 (p = 0.003). In 2011, 37.8 % of surgical cases meeting ACOG criteria were malignant compared to 45.2 % in 2021 (p = 0.145). Conclusions: Our service has seen an increasing proportion of adnexal mass referrals that meet ACOG referral criteria. There is also a trending increase in malignant histopathology. This may be due to increased scrutiny of referrals by gynecologic oncologists starting in 2016 with appropriate referral to benign gynecology. Improved scrutiny of adnexal mass referrals could decrease the number of benign cases evaluated by Gynecologic Oncology, helping preserve resources for patients with higher risk of malignancy.

Indexed as

ACOG adnexal mass referral criteriaAdnexal massPhysician reviewReferral patterns

Identifiers

PMID40230492
PMCPMC11995750

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.