ArticleBMC medical imaging2025
O-RADS US versus IOTA simple rules in the diagnosis of benign and malignant adnexal masses: a prospective study.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Have Iota Simple Rules the Same Diagnostic Performance When Used by Nonexpert Examiners as Compared to Expert Examiners? Systematic Review and Meta-Analisis.Journal of clinical ultrasound : JCU · 2026Pooled it
- Salidroside represses ovarian cancer progression by targeting FSP1-dependent ferroptosis.Journal of ovarian research · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) in ovarian cancer: transforming detection, treatment, and prevention.Journal of ovarian research · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAlthough many studies have validated the diagnostic performance of Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data Systems ultrasound (O-RADS US), most have been observed by experienced sonologists, and relatively few by junior sonologists. The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of the O-RADS US and the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Simple Rules (SRs) in senior and junior sonologists to determine a more suitable assessment model for general clinical use.
methodsWe prospectively recruited 228 patients diagnosed with adnexal masses (AMs). Two senior sonologists acquired images and evaluated them following the O-RADS US and IOTA guidelines, and two junior sonologists reviewed and analyzed images and evaluated them following the same guidelines. In this research, pathological findings were used as the reference standard. Comparisons of categorical variables were made using the chi-square test, and comparisons of continuous variables were made using the two independent-samples t-test. The diagnostic performance of the models was compared by analyzing the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. The kappa value (κ) was used to compare the interobserver agreement between the senior and junior sonologists and the agreement between each ultrasound method and the reference standard.
resultsOf 228 AMs, 176 were benign and 52 malignant. The junior adjusted O-RADS US (> O-RADS 4a represents malignancy) had the highest diagnostic validity, with a sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 94.23%, 87.5%, and 89.04%, respectively, and ROC curve of 0.959 (95% CI, 0.924-0.980). Both junior unadjusted (> O-RADS 3 represents malignancy) and adjusted O-RADS US had significantly higher diagnostic performance than the junior SRs (AUC 0.951 and 0.959 vs. 0.840, P = 0.0003, 0.0001, respectively). Interobserver agreement between senior and junior sonologists using O-RADS US was moderate (κ = 0.465), and interobserver agreement between senior and junior sonologists using SRs, unadjusted, and adjusted O-RADS US was good (κ = 0.618, 0.657, and 0.718, respectively). The junior unadjusted O-RADS US, adjusted O-RADS US, and SRs showed good agreement with the pathological results (κ = 0.648, 0.724, 0.716, respectively).
conclusionsWhen assisting sonologists in AM diagnosis, the O-RADS US, especially the adjusted O-RADS US, had higher diagnostic performance than the SRs, and it would be more suitable for general clinical application.
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.