2022
DOI: 10.1002/uog.24777
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Performance of IOTA Simple Rules, Simple Rules risk assessment, ADNEX model and O‐RADS in differentiating between benign and malignant adnexal lesions in North American women

Abstract: What are the novel findings of this work?This is the first diagnostic accuracy study comparing the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) models and Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) in patients from a single gynecologic ultrasound center in North America. It compared their performance in differentiating preoperatively between benign and malignant adnexal lesions in the same cohort of patients. Both the IOTA models and O-RADS performed well, with similar sensitivity. The three IOTA models… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

5
62
3

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 66 publications
(70 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
5
62
3
Order By: Relevance
“…After full-text reading, three papers were excluded (no data for constructing 2 × 2 table available (n = 2), and use of MRI, instead of ultrasound (n = 1)). Eleven papers were ultimately included in the qualitative and quantitative synthesis [22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32]. A flowchart summarizing the literature search is shown in Figure 1.…”
Section: Search Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…After full-text reading, three papers were excluded (no data for constructing 2 × 2 table available (n = 2), and use of MRI, instead of ultrasound (n = 1)). Eleven papers were ultimately included in the qualitative and quantitative synthesis [22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32]. A flowchart summarizing the literature search is shown in Figure 1.…”
Section: Search Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The study design was retrospective in 10 studies [22][23][24][25][26][27][29][30][31][32] and prospective in just one study [28]. Eight studies were considered as having high risk regarding the patient selection domain, since inappropriate exclusions (for example, cases with poor image quality or cases with not all data available) were observed [22,23,25,[27][28][29][30][31][32], and one study was unclear since a complete description of the exclusion criteria was lacking [26].…”
Section: Methodological Quality Of Included Studiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations