ArticleJournal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine2026
Comparative Diagnostic Performance of IOTA Simple Rules, O-RADS US, and Subjective Assessment in Differentiating Benign from Malignant Adnexal Masses.
Article in Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the diagnostic performance of International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Simple Rules, Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System for Ultrasound (O-RADS US), and Subjective Assessment in differentiating benign from malignant adnexal masses.
methodsThis prospective study included 249 women evaluated between May 2021 and June 2025 at a tertiary oncology center. Participants underwent standardized transvaginal ultrasound classified according to IOTA Simple Rules, O-RADS US, and Subjective Assessment by examiners blinded to biomarker and imaging results. Most examinations (78%) were performed by a level 2 radiologist, 11% by a level 3 gynecologist, and 11% by level 2 gynecologist sonographers. Final diagnosis was established by histopathology (n = 243) or ≥2 years of follow-up (n = 6). Diagnostic performance was assessed using sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, accuracy, likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratios (DOR), with pairwise comparisons performed by McNemar's test.
resultsMalignant lesions were associated with older age, larger size, complex morphology, ascites, and higher CA125 (p < .05). O-RADS US achieved the highest sensitivity (98.2%) and negative predictive value (95.9%) but the lowest specificity (33.8%). Subjective Assessment had the highest specificity (75.2%) and accuracy (79.6%) but lower sensitivity (85.6%). Simple Rules demonstrated balanced performance (sensitivity 94.6%, specificity 56.8%). DORs were comparable (17.9-27.6). In terms of accuracy, Simple Rules and Subjective Assessment outperformed O-RADS US, while no statistically significant difference was observed between Simple Rules and Subjective Assessment. Inter-method agreement was highest between Simple Rules and Subjective Assessment (κ = 0.69), followed by Simple Rules and O-RADS US (κ = 0.62), and O-RADS US and Subjective Assessment (κ = 0.41).
conclusionO-RADS US maximized sensitivity for malignancy detection, Simple Rules provided balanced accuracy, and Subjective Assessment offered superior specificity. Their complementary use may optimize adnexal mass characterization across clinical settings.
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.