↓ 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 (85th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
143 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
229 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.
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

J. Kaijser, T. Bourne, L. Valentin, A. Sayasneh, C. Van Holsbeke, I. Vergote, A. C. Testa, D. Franchi, B. Van Calster, D. Timmerman

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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 229 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Israel 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 218 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 25 11%
Student > Postgraduate 24 10%
Other 21 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 9%
Student > Master 19 8%
Other 59 26%
Unknown 60 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 125 55%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 2%
Engineering 5 2%
Other 15 7%
Unknown 68 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 25 October 2014.
All research outputs
#4,279,808
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology
#523
of 3,052 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,635
of 288,833 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology
#9
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,052 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 288,833 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.