ArticleCureus2025
Preoperative Risk Stratification of Adnexal Masses Using the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Simple Rules and Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI) 2: A Prospective Diagnostic Study From a Tertiary Centre in Southern India.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Simple Rules with Risk of Malignancy Index 2 (RMI 2) for preoperative stratification of adnexal masses, and to assess the performance of serum CA-125 and handling inconclusive IOTA results, using histopathology as the reference standard.
methodsA prospective diagnostic accuracy study was conducted at a tertiary care center in South India, enrolling 56 women aged ≥18 years with ultrasonographically detected adnexal masses scheduled for surgery. IOTA Simple Rules and RMI 2 scoring were applied preoperatively. All patients underwent surgical excision, and the final diagnosis was based on histopathology. Diagnostic metrics, including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), accuracy, and area under the ROC curve (AUC), were calculated. Sensitivity analyses were performed for inconclusive IOTA cases, and statistical comparisons used DeLong and McNemar's tests.
resultsOf 56 cases, 11 (19.6%) were malignant and 45 (80.4%) benign. IOTA Simple Rules were conclusive in 52 (92.9%) cases. For conclusive IOTA, sensitivity was 90.9%, specificity 95.1%, PPV 83.3%, NPV 97.5%, accuracy 94.2%, and AUC 0.930. RMI 2 showed sensitivity 72.7%, specificity 97.8%, PPV 88.9%, NPV 93.6%, accuracy 92.9%, and AUC 0.853. Sensitivity analyses revealed robust NPV and accuracy with alternative coding of inconclusive IOTA results.
conclusionIOTA Simple Rules provide superior sensitivity and comparable specificity compared to RMI 2, supporting their role as a safe and reliable first-line tool for preoperative risk stratification of adnexal masses in gynecologic practice.
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.