↓ Skip to main content

Investigating the performance and cost-effectiveness of the simple ultrasound-based rules compared to the risk of malignancy index in the diagnosis of ovarian cancer (SUBSONiC-study): protocol of a…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
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
Investigating the performance and cost-effectiveness of the simple ultrasound-based rules compared to the risk of malignancy index in the diagnosis of ovarian cancer (SUBSONiC-study): protocol of a prospective multicenter cohort study in the Netherlands
Published in
BMC Cancer, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12885-015-1319-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Evelyne MJ Meys, Iris JG Rutten, Roy FPM Kruitwagen, Brigitte F Slangen, Martin GM Bergmans, Helen JMM Mertens, Ernst Nolting, Dieuwke Boskamp, Regina GH Beets-Tan, Toon van Gorp

Abstract

Estimating the risk of malignancy is essential in the management of adnexal masses. An accurate differential diagnosis between benign and malignant masses will reduce morbidity and costs due to unnecessary operations, and will improve referral to a gynecologic oncologist for specialized cancer care, which improves outcome and overall survival. The Risk of Malignancy Index is currently the most commonly used method in clinical practice, but has a relatively low diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity 75-80 % and specificity 85-90 %). Recent reports show that other methods, such as simple ultrasound-based rules, subjective assessment and (Diffusion Weighted) Magnetic Resonance Imaging might be superior to the RMI in the pre-operative differentiation of adnexal masses. A prospective multicenter cohort study will be performed in the south of The Netherlands. A total of 270 women diagnosed with at least one pelvic mass that is suspected to be of ovarian origin who will undergo surgery, will be enrolled. We will apply the Risk of Malignancy Index with a cut-off value of 200 and a two-step triage test consisting of simple ultrasound-based rules supplemented -if necessary- with either subjective assessment by an expert sonographer or Magnetic Resonance Imaging with diffusion weighted sequences, to characterize the adnexal masses. The histological diagnosis will be the reference standard. Diagnostic performances will be expressed as sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and likelihood ratios. We hypothesize that this two-step triage test, including the simple ultrasound-based rules, will have better diagnostic accuracy than the Risk of Malignancy Index and therefore will improve the management of women with adnexal masses. Furthermore, we expect this two-step test to be more cost-effective. If the hypothesis is confirmed, the results of this study could have major effects on current guidelines and implementation of the triage test in daily clinical practice could be a possibility. ClinicalTrials.gov: registration number NCT02218502.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 3%
India 1 3%
Brazil 1 3%
Unknown 29 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 28%
Student > Master 6 19%
Student > Postgraduate 4 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Professor 2 6%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 4 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 16%
Psychology 2 6%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Environmental Science 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 4 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 20 July 2015.
All research outputs
#2,481,262
of 5,376,712 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#896
of 2,828 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,871
of 187,676 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#58
of 166 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 5,376,712 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 51st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,828 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 187,676 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 166 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 57% of its contemporaries.