ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2025
Evaluation of adnexal masses with ultrasonographic parameters and magnetic resonance imaging.
Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2025. 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.
- O-RADS for assessment of adnexal lesions: current status, challenges and future directions.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2026Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAdnexal masses (AMs) are commonly seen gynecological problems. Most of the AMs of women in reproductive period are physiologic. A rare but lethal cause of AMs is ovarian cancer. It is important to distinguish benign and malignant AMs. In this study, two scoring systems named "Evaluation of Different Neoplasms in Adnexa (ADNEX)" model and "Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting Data System MR (O-RADS MR)" were examined in terms of diagnostic performance in distinguishing benign or malignant AMs.
methodsPatients undergone surgery due to AMs were involved in this retrospective study. ADNEX risk model scores and MRI results of patients were re-evaluated for calculating O-RADS MRI scores.
results284 patients enrolled in this study. ADNEX risk model had a 93.8% (95% CI: 90.9-96.7%) of area under the ROC curve (AUC) for malignancy risk (p < 0.001). O-RADS risk model had a 95.7% (95% CI: 92.8-98.6) of AUC (p < 0.001). When cut-off value was set as 42%, sensitivity and specificity of ADNEX risk model were 87% and 88.6, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity of O-RADS MRI risk scoring system were 93.8% and 93.2 when cut-off value was set as ≥ 4, respectively. AUC values of ADNEX risk model and O-RADS MRI scores were not significantly different in terms of differentiating between benign and malignant cases (p = 0.218).
conclusionADNEX risk model and O-RADS MRI score are successful in terms of identifying benign and malign cases for evaluation of AMs. There was no significant difference in the ability of these two methods to distinguish benign and malignant cases.
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.