GI-RADS versus O-RADS in the differential diagnosis of adnexal masses: a systematic review and head-to-head meta-analysis
Purpose The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of the Gynecology Imaging Reporting and Data System (GI-RADS) and Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) ultrasound (US) classification systems and assess their capacity to stratify the risk of malignancy in adnexal...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Korean Society of Ultrasound in Medicine
2024-11-01
|
| Series: | Ultrasonography |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.e-ultrasonography.org/upload/usg-24105.pdf |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1846163814580486144 |
|---|---|
| author | Marina Perez Ainhoa Meseguer Julio Vara Jose Carlos Vilches Ignacio Brunel Manuel Lozano Rodrigo Orozco Juan Luis Alcazar |
| author_facet | Marina Perez Ainhoa Meseguer Julio Vara Jose Carlos Vilches Ignacio Brunel Manuel Lozano Rodrigo Orozco Juan Luis Alcazar |
| author_sort | Marina Perez |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Purpose The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of the Gynecology Imaging Reporting and Data System (GI-RADS) and Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) ultrasound (US) classification systems and assess their capacity to stratify the risk of malignancy in adnexal masses (AMs). Methods A comprehensive search of MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar was conducted to identify articles published between January 2020 and August 2023. The quality of the studies, the risk of bias, and concerns regarding applicability were assessed using QUADAS-2. Results The search yielded 132 citations. Five articles, which included a total of 2,448 AMs, were ultimately selected for inclusion. The risk of bias was high in all articles regarding patient selection, low in four studies for the index test, and unclear in three papers for the reference test. For GI-RADS, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 90.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 86.0% to 94.0%) and 91.5% (95% CI, 89.0% to 93.0%), respectively. For O-RADS, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 95.1% (95% CI, 93.0% to 97.0%) and 88.8% (95% CI, 85.0% to 92.0%), respectively. O-RADS demonstrated greater sensitivity for malignancy than GI-RADS (P<0.05). Heterogeneity was moderate for both sensitivity and specificity with respect to GIRADS; for O-RADS, heterogeneity was moderate for sensitivity and high for specificity. Conclusion Both GI-RADS and O-RADS US demonstrate good diagnostic performance in the preoperative assessment of AMs. However, the O-RADS classification provides superior sensitivity. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-17b7141316c74627a1b3d0dedd81a964 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2288-5943 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2024-11-01 |
| publisher | Korean Society of Ultrasound in Medicine |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Ultrasonography |
| spelling | doaj-art-17b7141316c74627a1b3d0dedd81a9642024-11-18T23:59:01ZengKorean Society of Ultrasound in MedicineUltrasonography2288-59432024-11-0143643844710.14366/usg.241051736GI-RADS versus O-RADS in the differential diagnosis of adnexal masses: a systematic review and head-to-head meta-analysisMarina Perez0Ainhoa Meseguer1Julio Vara2Jose Carlos Vilches3Ignacio Brunel4Manuel Lozano5Rodrigo Orozco6Juan Luis Alcazar7 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University General Hospital Nuestra Señora del Prado, Talavera de la Reina, Spain Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital Comarcal Francesc de Borja, Gandia, Spain Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital QuirónSalud, Málaga, Spain Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital QuirónSalud, Málaga, Spain Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital QuirónSalud, Málaga, Spain Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital QuirónSalud, Málaga, Spain Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, University of Navarra, Pamplona, SpainPurpose The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of the Gynecology Imaging Reporting and Data System (GI-RADS) and Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) ultrasound (US) classification systems and assess their capacity to stratify the risk of malignancy in adnexal masses (AMs). Methods A comprehensive search of MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar was conducted to identify articles published between January 2020 and August 2023. The quality of the studies, the risk of bias, and concerns regarding applicability were assessed using QUADAS-2. Results The search yielded 132 citations. Five articles, which included a total of 2,448 AMs, were ultimately selected for inclusion. The risk of bias was high in all articles regarding patient selection, low in four studies for the index test, and unclear in three papers for the reference test. For GI-RADS, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 90.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 86.0% to 94.0%) and 91.5% (95% CI, 89.0% to 93.0%), respectively. For O-RADS, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 95.1% (95% CI, 93.0% to 97.0%) and 88.8% (95% CI, 85.0% to 92.0%), respectively. O-RADS demonstrated greater sensitivity for malignancy than GI-RADS (P<0.05). Heterogeneity was moderate for both sensitivity and specificity with respect to GIRADS; for O-RADS, heterogeneity was moderate for sensitivity and high for specificity. Conclusion Both GI-RADS and O-RADS US demonstrate good diagnostic performance in the preoperative assessment of AMs. However, the O-RADS classification provides superior sensitivity.http://www.e-ultrasonography.org/upload/usg-24105.pdfadnexal massesultrasounddiagnosis |
| spellingShingle | Marina Perez Ainhoa Meseguer Julio Vara Jose Carlos Vilches Ignacio Brunel Manuel Lozano Rodrigo Orozco Juan Luis Alcazar GI-RADS versus O-RADS in the differential diagnosis of adnexal masses: a systematic review and head-to-head meta-analysis Ultrasonography adnexal masses ultrasound diagnosis |
| title | GI-RADS versus O-RADS in the differential diagnosis of adnexal masses: a systematic review and head-to-head meta-analysis |
| title_full | GI-RADS versus O-RADS in the differential diagnosis of adnexal masses: a systematic review and head-to-head meta-analysis |
| title_fullStr | GI-RADS versus O-RADS in the differential diagnosis of adnexal masses: a systematic review and head-to-head meta-analysis |
| title_full_unstemmed | GI-RADS versus O-RADS in the differential diagnosis of adnexal masses: a systematic review and head-to-head meta-analysis |
| title_short | GI-RADS versus O-RADS in the differential diagnosis of adnexal masses: a systematic review and head-to-head meta-analysis |
| title_sort | gi rads versus o rads in the differential diagnosis of adnexal masses a systematic review and head to head meta analysis |
| topic | adnexal masses ultrasound diagnosis |
| url | http://www.e-ultrasonography.org/upload/usg-24105.pdf |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT marinaperez giradsversusoradsinthedifferentialdiagnosisofadnexalmassesasystematicreviewandheadtoheadmetaanalysis AT ainhoameseguer giradsversusoradsinthedifferentialdiagnosisofadnexalmassesasystematicreviewandheadtoheadmetaanalysis AT juliovara giradsversusoradsinthedifferentialdiagnosisofadnexalmassesasystematicreviewandheadtoheadmetaanalysis AT josecarlosvilches giradsversusoradsinthedifferentialdiagnosisofadnexalmassesasystematicreviewandheadtoheadmetaanalysis AT ignaciobrunel giradsversusoradsinthedifferentialdiagnosisofadnexalmassesasystematicreviewandheadtoheadmetaanalysis AT manuellozano giradsversusoradsinthedifferentialdiagnosisofadnexalmassesasystematicreviewandheadtoheadmetaanalysis AT rodrigoorozco giradsversusoradsinthedifferentialdiagnosisofadnexalmassesasystematicreviewandheadtoheadmetaanalysis AT juanluisalcazar giradsversusoradsinthedifferentialdiagnosisofadnexalmassesasystematicreviewandheadtoheadmetaanalysis |