Supplementary Material for: Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm versus Risk Malignancy Index-I for Preoperative Assessment of Adnexal Masses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
datasetposted on 16.07.2019 by Chacón E., Dasí J., Caballero C., Alcázar J.L.
Datasets usually provide raw data for analysis. This raw data often comes in spreadsheet form, but can be any collection of data, on which analysis can be performed.
Purpose: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing the diagnostic accuracy of Risk of Ovarian Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) and risk of malignancy index (RMI) for detecting ovarian cancer. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to PRISMA statement. A search for studies evaluating the diagnostic performance of ROMA and RMI-I indices for detecting ovarian malignancy from January 2010 to October 2018 was performed in the PubMed/MEDLINE and Web of Science databases. The quality of the studies was evaluated by the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2. Results: Sixty-six citations were identified. After exclusions, 8 papers comprising 2,662 women (1,319 premenopausal and 1,343 postmenopausal) were ultimately included. The mean prevalence of ovarian malignancy was 29.0% in premenopausal women and 51.0% in postmenopausal women. High risk of bias for patient selection was observed for most studies. ROMA and RMI-I had a similar diagnostic performance in postmenopausal women (pooled sensitivity [87 vs. 77%] and specificity [75 vs. 85%], respectively. p = 0.29). In premenopausal women, RMI-I showed better specificity than ROMA (89 vs. 78%, p = 0.022) with similar sensitivity (73 vs. 80%, p= 0.27). Significant heterogeneity was found for sensitivity and specificity in comparisons of both groups. Conclusions: ROMA and RMI-I have similar diagnostic performance for detecting ovarian cancer in women presenting with an adnexal mass. However, RMI-I showed a higher specificity than ROMA in premenopausal women. Notwithstanding, as the risk of bias is high in most studies, our results should be interpreted with caution.