SynthesisJournal of clinical ultrasound : JCU2026
Have Iota Simple Rules the Same Diagnostic Performance When Used by Nonexpert Examiners as Compared to Expert Examiners? Systematic Review and Meta-Analisis.
Synthesis in Journal of clinical ultrasound : JCU, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the diagnostic accuracy of the IOTA Simple Rules for classifying adnexal masses when applied by expert versus nonexpert ultrasound operators, and to assess whether diagnostic performance is maintained across different levels of examiner experience.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to PRISMA-DTA guidelines. PubMed, Scopus, and Embase were searched for studies evaluating the IOTA Simple Rules with histopathology as the reference standard. Studies were stratified by operator experience: experts (IOTA-trained subspecialists) and nonexperts (general gynecologists or trainees). Pooled sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, diagnostic odds ratios, and HSROC curves were calculated using a bivariate random-effects model. Heterogeneity was quantified using I
resultsThirty studies (25 with expert and 11 with nonexpert examiners) were included, encompassing adnexal masses with a mean malignancy prevalence of 27%. Among expert operators, pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.90 (95% CI 0.86-0.92) and 0.93 (95% CI 0.91-0.95), respectively, with an AUC of 0.96. Among nonexpert operators, pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.88 (95% CI 0.82-0.92) and 0.92 (95% CI 0.86-0.96), with an AUC of 0.95. Diagnostic odds ratios were 118 for experts and 86 for nonexperts. Differences in accuracy between groups were nonstatistically significant and, therefore, clinically negligible. Using an estimated prevalence of 27%, the positive posttest probability was 84% for experts and 81% for nonexperts, while the negative posttest probability was 4% and 5%, respectively. No significant publication bias was detected.
conclusionThe IOTA Simple Rules demonstrate excellent diagnostic accuracy when used by both expert and nonexpert operators, with only minor differences in performance. These findings confirm that the Simple Rules are reproducible, robust and transferable across different clinical experience levels, supporting their role as an accessible and reliable triage tool for adnexal mass assessment, including outside tertiary referral centers.
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.