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

Abstract

Objective

Interobserver Agreement in Describing the Ultrasound Appearance of Adnexal Masses and in Calculating the Risk of Malignancy Using Logistic Regression Models

“…Acoustic shadowing is a strong variable in both LR1 and LR2 and has great impact on the calculated risk in LR2 with only six variables. In our hands as well as in those of Ruiz de Gauna and colleagues (23), interobserver agreement for acoustic shadowing was at most moderate. The interobserver agreement for color score was only fair in our study, and color score is an important variable in LR1.…”

“…To the best of our knowledge, there is only one publication reporting on interobserver agreement with regard to describing ultrasound findings in adnexal masses using the IOTA terminology (11) when performing live ultrasound examinations (23). However, that study (23) evaluated interobserver agreement with regard to the ten ultrasound features in the IOTA simple rules (24,25), not the variables included in the IOTA logistic regression models LR1 and LR2, and agreement was estimated between examiners with different levels of experience.…”

Use of IOTA simple rules for diagnosis of ovarian cancer: meta‐analysis

“…After excluding duplicates ( n = 18) and studies that did not include the simple‐rules protocol ( n = 56), 14 studies were left for detailed evaluation these full‐text articles were then read fully. A further eight studies were excluded because they were using simple rules combined with another ultrasound tool ( n = 1), or they were a reanalysis of previously published data included here from another study and therefore of patients already included ( n = 3), a retrospective study looking at interobserver variability ( n = 1), a mixed prospective and retrospective assessment of interobserver variability ( n = 1), a summary ( n = 1) or a protocol ( n = 1). That left six studies to add to our data.…”

“…This study was excluded as it was a retrospective one and as it had different results for each of the five examiners. Ruiz de Gauna et al . performed a similar study with two ultrasound operators analyzing the tumors in real time and four doing so retrospectively in order to assess interobserver agreement, and was therefore excluded as no single result was available.…”

Diagnostic performance of IOTA simple rules for adnexal masses classification: a comparison between two centers with different ovarian cancer prevalence

“…However, Zannoni in 2014 published an observational prospective study performed in four different hospitals to estimate the intra-and inter-observer reproducibility in order to classify adnexal masses with IOTA criteria by examiners with different degrees of experience, concluding that the inter-observer reproducibility was moderate [15]. The same year, we published a prospective observational study to estimate the agreement between an expert and a non-expert examiner using the IOTA simple rules for classifying adnexal masses on real-time ultrasound and when using three-dimensional volumes and digital clips, concluding that inter-observer agreement using real time ultrasound between an expert and a non-expert examiner might be considered good [16].…”