ArticleBMC women's health2026
Analysis of the efficacy of adnexal mass diagnosis by senior and junior sonologists based on subjective diagnosis and O-RADS classification.
Article in BMC women's health, 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.
- Exploratory evaluation of a CEUS-derived substitution for solid-component measurement in the ADNEX model.BMC women's health · 2026Article
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
backgroundIn clinical practice, the majority of adnexal masses(AMs) are assessed and diagnosed by junior ultrasonologists, as there are more primary ultrasonologists than specialists. However, diagnostic omissions and misdiagnoses are common due to the inexperience of junior ultrasonologists, and diagnostic accuracy varies significantly among different individuals and research centres. Therefore, a more reliable assessment of the malignancy risk of adnexal lesions is necessary to aid sonologists, particularly those who lack experience, in diagnosing AMs.The purposes of this study were to compare the effectiveness of benign and malignant adnexal mass diagnosis based on subjective assessments and the O-RADS US among sonologists with different experience levels and evaluate consistency; furthermore, to analyse the reasons for missed and misdiagnosed cases and inconsistent O-RADS classification to promote the practical application and promotion of O-RADS ultrasound classification in clinical settings.
methodsA senior and a junior sonologist subjectively evaluated and O-RADS classified adnexal masses using the blind method, both of them had participated in the systematic learning and training of O-RADS diagnostic guidelines. With postoperative pathological results as the gold standard, the receiver operating characteristic curve was used to test the diagnostic performance. Kappa (k) statistics were used to assess the interobserver agreement.
resultsOf the 530 adnexal lesions, 470 (88.7%) were benign and 60 (11.3%) were malignant. The area under the curve of O-RADS classification and subjective judgment were 0.94 (95% CI: 0.92–0.96) and 0.79 (95%CI: 0.73–0.84) for the junior sonologist (P < 0.05) and 0.96 (95% CI: 0.94–0.97) and 0.93 (95% CI: 0.88–0.98) for the senior sonologist (P < 0.05). The interobserver agreement was poor in subjective judgment (Kappa value was 0.34, P < 0.05). The Kappa value of O-RADS classification was 0.91( P < 0.05).
conclusionsFor both the senior and junior sonologists, the diagnostic efficacy and consistency using the O-RADS were better than those of their subjective diagnoses. When the junior sonologist utilized the O-RADS, diagnostic efficacy was significantly improved.
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.