Interobserver agreement in describing adnexal masses using the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis simple rules in a real-time setting and using three-dimensional ultrasound volumes and digital clips

2014 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. 95-99 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Ruiz de Gauna ◽  
P. Sanchez ◽  
L. Pineda ◽  
J. Utrilla-Layna ◽  
L. Juez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Real Time ◽  
Ovarian Tumor ◽  
Interobserver Agreement ◽  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Adnexal Masses ◽  
Simple Rules

Simple Rules, Not So Simple: The Use of International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Terminology and Simple Rules in Inexperienced Hands in a Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study

2017 ◽  
Vol 38 (06) ◽  
pp. 633-641 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evelyne Meys ◽  
Iris Rutten ◽  
Roy Kruitwagen ◽  
Brigitte Slangen ◽  
Sandrina Lambrechts ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cohort Study ◽  
Ovarian Tumor ◽  
Interobserver Agreement ◽  
Tumor Type ◽  
Kappa Index ◽  
Multicenter Cohort Study ◽  
Multicenter Cohort ◽  
Simple Rules ◽  
Level Of Agreement ◽  
Ovarian Masses

Abstract Objectives To analyze how well untrained examiners – without experience in the use of International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) terminology or simple ultrasound-based rules (simple rules) – are able to apply IOTA terminology and simple rules and to assess the level of agreement between non-experts and an expert. Methods This prospective multicenter cohort study enrolled women with ovarian masses. Ultrasound was performed by non-expert examiners and an expert. Ultrasound features were recorded using IOTA nomenclature, and used for classifying the mass by simple rules. Interobserver agreement was evaluated with Fleiss’ kappa and percentage agreement between observers. Results 50 consecutive women were included. We observed 46 discrepancies in the description of ovarian masses when non-experts utilized IOTA terminology. Tumor type was misclassified often (n = 22), resulting in poor interobserver agreement between the non-experts and the expert (kappa = 0.39, 95 %-CI 0.244 – 0.529, percentage of agreement = 52.0 %). Misinterpretation of simple rules by non-experts was observed 57 times, resulting in an erroneous diagnosis in 15 patients (30 %). The agreement for classifying the mass as benign, malignant or inconclusive by simple rules was only moderate between the non-experts and the expert (kappa = 0.50, 95 %-CI 0.300 – 0.704, percentage of agreement = 70.0 %). The level of agreement for all 10 simple rules features varied greatly (kappa index range: -0.08 – 0.74, percentage of agreement 66 – 94 %). Conclusion Although simple rules are useful to distinguish benign from malignant adnexal masses, they are not that simple for untrained examiners. Training with both IOTA terminology and simple rules is necessary before simple rules can be introduced into guidelines and daily clinical practice.

Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of International Ovarian Tumor Analysis simple rules and the risk of malignancy index to discriminate between benign and malignant adnexal masses

2019 ◽  
Vol 146 (3) ◽  
pp. 364-369 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rapeepat Auekitrungrueng ◽  
Dangcheewan Tinnangwattana ◽  
Charuwan Tantipalakorn ◽  
Cholaros Charoenratana ◽  
Thitikarn Lerthiranwong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Ovarian Tumor ◽  
Adnexal Masses ◽  
Simple Rules ◽  
Risk Of Malignancy ◽  
Risk Of Malignancy Index

scholarly journals Predicting the risk of malignancy in adnexal masses based on the Simple Rules from the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis group

2016 ◽  
Vol 214 (4) ◽  
pp. 424-437 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dirk Timmerman ◽  
Ben Van Calster ◽  
Antonia Testa ◽  
Luca Savelli ◽  
Daniela Fischerova ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ovarian Tumor ◽  
Adnexal Masses ◽  
Analysis Group ◽  
Simple Rules ◽  
Risk Of Malignancy
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document