↓ Skip to main content

Improving strategies for diagnosing ovarian cancer: a summary of the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) studies

Overview of attention for article published in Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology, December 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
guideline
1 clinical guideline source

Readers on

mendeley
261 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Improving strategies for diagnosing ovarian cancer: a summary of the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) studies
Published in
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology, December 2012
DOI 10.1002/uog.12323
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

In order to ensure that ovarian cancer patients access appropriate treatment to improve the outcome of this disease, accurate characterization before any surgery on ovarian pathology is essential. The International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) collaboration has standardized the approach to the ultrasound description of adnexal pathology. A prospectively collected large database enabled previously developed prediction models like the risk of malignancy index (RMI) to be tested and novel prediction models to be developed and externally validated in order to determine the optimal approach to characterize adnexal pathology preoperatively. The main IOTA prediction models (logistic regression model 1 (LR1) and logistic regression model 2 (LR2)) have both shown excellent diagnostic performance (area under the curve (AUC) values of 0.96 and 0.95, respectively) and outperform previous diagnostic algorithms. Their test performance almost matches subjective assessment by experienced examiners, which is accepted to be the best way to classify adnexal masses before surgery. A two-step strategy using the IOTA simple rules supplemented with subjective assessment of ultrasound findings when the rules do not apply, also reached excellent diagnostic performance (sensitivity 90%, specificity 93%) and misclassified fewer malignancies than did the RMI. An evidence-based approach to the preoperative characterization of ovarian and other adnexal masses should include the use of LR1, LR2 or IOTA simple rules and subjective assessment by an experienced examiner.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 261 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Netherlands 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
United States 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Unknown 251 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 31 12%
Student > Postgraduate 25 10%
Other 23 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 8%
Student > Master 20 8%
Other 58 22%
Unknown 83 32%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 130 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 2%
Engineering 6 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 2%
Other 16 6%
Unknown 91 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 August 2020.
All research outputs
#3,858,731
of 29,868,835 outputs
Outputs from Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology
#643
of 3,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,535
of 309,186 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology
#11
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 29,868,835 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,875 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 309,186 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.