The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Indeterminate Ovarian Mass at US: Incremental Value of Second Imaging Test for Characterization—Meta-Analysis and Bayesian Analysis
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare value of current diagnostic strategies in assessment of changes in posttest probability of ovarian cancer when menopausal status and combination and sequence of diagnostic imaging tests are considered. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prevalence of ovarian cancer according to menopausal status in women with an ovarian mass and performance of combined gray-scale and Doppler ultrasonography (US), computed tomography (CT), and non-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and contrast material-enhanced MR imaging after indeterminate results at gray-scale US were derived from meta-analysis by using MEDLINE database and institutional data. Study was approved by the institutional review board of University Hospital Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland; informed consent was waived. Posttest probability values were computed through Bayesian analysis and Monte Carlo simulation after initial gray-scale US and secondary combined gray-scale and Doppler US, CT, or MR imaging, while dependence of test results among imaging modalities was considered. Changes in posttest probability were compared among imaging modalities with summary receiver operating characteristic curves. RESULTS: Prevalence of ovarian cancer was 8.75% in premenopausal women and 32.40% in postmenopausal women with an ovarian mass. After characterization with initial gray-scale US, posttest probability in pre- and postmenopausal women changed, respectively, to 25% and 63% for indeterminate results and to 2% and 7% for benign results. Subsequent use of combined gray-scale and Doppler US, CT, or MR imaging had significant higher positive and lower negative posttest probability than did use of gray-scale US alone. In women with an indeterminate initial US result, posttest probability decreased after secondary testing with benign results for all imaging modalities to 2% in premenopausal women and to 8%-10% in postmenopausal women. After secondary testing for suspicious lesions, posttest probability increased more after non-enhanced (premenopausal women, 70%; postmenopausal women, 92%) or contrast-enhanced MR imaging (premenopausal women, 80%; postmenopausal women, 95%) than it did after combined gray-scale and Doppler US (premenopausal women, 30%; postmenopausal women, 69%) or CT (premenopausal women, 38%; postmenopausal women, 76%) (P < .001). CONCLUSION: In women with an indeterminate ovarian mass at gray-scale US, MR imaging results contributed to change in probability of ovarian cancer in both pre- and postmenopausal women more than did CT or combined gray-scale and Doppler US results.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
(2005) · Statistics for Biology and Health · doi:10.1007/0-387-27255-0_9 · Cited by 20,133
Ripley, B. D. (1987) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/9780470316726 · Cited by 2,241
Moses, L. E., Shapiro, D., & Littenberg, B. (1993) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.4780121403 · Cited by 1,405
JACOBS, I., ORAM, D., FAIRBANKS, J., TURNER, J., FROST, C., & GRUDZINSKAS, J. G. (1990) · BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.1990.tb02448.x · Cited by 962
Guidelines for Meta-analyses Evaluating Diagnostic Tests
Irwig, L., Tosteson, A. N. A., Gatsonis, C., Lau, J., Colditz, G., Chalmers, T. C., & Mosteller, F. (1994) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-120-8-199404150-00008 · Cited by 753
Relative frequency of primary ovarian neoplasms: A 10‐year review
Koonings, P. P., Campbell, K., Mishell, D. R., & Grimes, D. A. (1990) · International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics · doi:10.1016/0020-7292(90)90378-x · Cited by 412
Tingulstad, S., Hagen, B., Skjeldestad, F. E., Onsrud, M., Kiserud, T., Halvorsen, T., & Nustad, K. (1996) · BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.1996.tb09882.x · Cited by 349
Complex Adnexal Masses: Detection and Characterization with MR Imaging—Multivariate Analysis
Hricak, H., Chen, M., Coakley, F. V., Kinkel, K., Yu, K. K., Sica, G., Bacchetti, P., & Powell, C. B. (2000) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiology.214.1.r00ja3939 · Cited by 294
Self-citationKurtz, A. B., Tsimikas, J. V., Tempany, C. M. C., Hamper, U. M., Arger, P. H., Bree, R. L., Wechsler, R. J., Francis, I. R., Kuhlman, J. E., Siegelman, E. S., et al. (1999) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiology.212.1.r99jl3619 · Cited by 267
Cited by
Practice Bulletin No. 183: postpartum hemorrhage
(2017) · Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1097/aog.0000000000002351 · Cited by 1,406
Diagnosis of endometriosis with imaging: a review
Kinkel, K., Frei, K. A., Balleyguier, C., & Chapron, C. (2006) · European Radiology · doi:10.1007/s00330-005-2882-y · Cited by 321
Self-citationMRI, CT, and PET/CT for Ovarian Cancer Detection and Adnexal Lesion Characterization
Iyer, V. R., & Lee, S. I. (2010) · American Journal of Roentgenology · doi:10.2214/ajr.09.3522 · Cited by 263
Metadata
- Authors
- Kinkel, K., Lu, Y., Mehdizade, A., Pelte, M.-F., & Hricak, H.
- Venue
- Radiology
- Published
- 2005-07
- Volume
- 236
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 85-94
- ISSN
- 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-1315
- OpenAlex
- W1967293578
- Cited by
- 280
- References
- 23
- FWCI
- 8.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Indeterminate Ovarian Mass at US: Incremental Value of Second Imaging Test for Characterization—Meta-Analysis and Bayesian Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1148/radiol.2361041618
- The paper
- Kinkel, K., Lu, Y., Mehdizade, A., Pelte, M.-F., & Hricak, H. (2005). Indeterminate Ovarian Mass at US: Incremental Value of Second Imaging Test for Characterization—Meta-Analysis and Bayesian Analysis. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2361041618
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.