Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of the Gynecology Imaging Reporting and Data System (GI-RADS) and Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) ultrasound (US) classification systems and assess their capacity to stratify the risk of malignancy in adnexal masses (AMs). Methods: A comprehensive search of MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar was conducted to identify articles published between January 2020 and August 2023. The quality of the studies, the risk of bias, and concerns regarding applicability were assessed using QUADAS-2. Results: The search yielded 132 citations. Five articles, which included a total of 2,448 AMs, were ultimately selected for inclusion. The risk of bias was high in all articles regarding patient selection, low in four studies for the index test, and unclear in three papers for the reference test. For GI-RADS, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 90.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 86.0% to 94.0%) and 91.5% (95% CI, 89.0% to 93.0%), respectively. For O-RADS, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 95.1% (95% CI, 93.0% to 97.0%) and 88.8% (95% CI, 85.0% to 92.0%), respectively. O-RADS demonstrated greater sensitivity for malignancy than GI-RADS (P<0.05). Heterogeneity was moderate for both sensitivity and specificity with respect to GIRADS; for O-RADS, heterogeneity was moderate for sensitivity and high for specificity. Conclusion Both GI-RADS and O-RADS US demonstrate good diagnostic performance in the preoperative assessment of AMs. However, the O-RADS classification provides superior sensitivity.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of the Gynecology Imaging Reporting and Data System (GI-RADS) and Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) ultrasound (US) classification systems and assess their capacity to stratify the risk of malignancy in adnexal masses (AMs). Methods: A comprehensive search of MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar was conducted to identify articles published between January 2020 and August 2023. The quality of the studies, the risk of bias, and concerns regarding applicability were assessed using QUADAS-2. Results: The search yielded 132 citations. Five articles, which included a total of 2,448 AMs, were ultimately selected for inclusion. The risk of bias was high in all articles regarding patient selection, low in four studies for the index test, and unclear in three papers for the reference test. For GI-RADS, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 90.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 86.0% to 94.0%) and 91.5% (95% CI, 89.0% to 93.0%), respectively. For O-RADS, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 95.1% (95% CI, 93.0% to 97.0%) and 88.8% (95% CI, 85.0% to 92.0%), respectively. O-RADS demonstrated greater sensitivity for malignancy than GI-RADS (P<0.05). Heterogeneity was moderate for both sensitivity and specificity with respect to GIRADS; for O-RADS, heterogeneity was moderate for sensitivity and high for specificity. Conclusion Both GI-RADS and O-RADS US demonstrate good diagnostic performance in the preoperative assessment of AMs. However, the O-RADS classification provides superior sensitivity.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of the Gynecology Imaging Reporting and Data System (GI-RADS) and Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) ultrasound (US) classification systems and assess their capacity to stratify the risk of malignancy in adnexal masses (AMs). Methods: A comprehensive search of MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar was conducted to identify articles published between January 2020 and August 2023. The quality of the studies, the risk of bias, and concerns regarding applicability were assessed using QUADAS-2. Results: The search yielded 132 citations. Five articles, which included a total of 2,448 AMs, were ultimately selected for inclusion. The risk of bias was high in all articles regarding patient selection, low in four studies for the index test, and unclear in three papers for the reference test. For GI-RADS, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 90.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 86.0% to 94.0%) and 91.5% (95% CI, 89.0% to 93.0%), respectively. For O-RADS, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 95.1% (95% CI, 93.0% to 97.0%) and 88.8% (95% CI, 85.0% to 92.0%), respectively. O-RADS demonstrated greater sensitivity for malignancy than GI-RADS (P<0.05). Heterogeneity was moderate for both sensitivity and specificity with respect to GIRADS; for O-RADS, heterogeneity was moderate for sensitivity and high for specificity. Conclusion Both GI-RADS and O-RADS US demonstrate good diagnostic performance in the preoperative assessment of AMs. However, the O-RADS classification provides superior sensitivity.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of the Gynecology Imaging Reporting and Data System (GI-RADS) and Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) ultrasound (US) classification systems and assess their capacity to stratify the risk of malignancy in adnexal masses (AMs). Methods: A comprehensive search of MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar was conducted to identify articles published between January 2020 and August 2023. The quality of the studies, the risk of bias, and concerns regarding applicability were assessed using QUADAS-2. Results: The search yielded 132 citations. Five articles, which included a total of 2,448 AMs, were ultimately selected for inclusion. The risk of bias was high in all articles regarding patient selection, low in four studies for the index test, and unclear in three papers for the reference test. For GI-RADS, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 90.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 86.0% to 94.0%) and 91.5% (95% CI, 89.0% to 93.0%), respectively. For O-RADS, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 95.1% (95% CI, 93.0% to 97.0%) and 88.8% (95% CI, 85.0% to 92.0%), respectively. O-RADS demonstrated greater sensitivity for malignancy than GI-RADS (P<0.05). Heterogeneity was moderate for both sensitivity and specificity with respect to GIRADS; for O-RADS, heterogeneity was moderate for sensitivity and high for specificity. Conclusion Both GI-RADS and O-RADS US demonstrate good diagnostic performance in the preoperative assessment of AMs. However, the O-RADS classification provides superior sensitivity.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of the Gynecology Imaging Reporting and Data System (GI-RADS) and Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) ultrasound (US) classification systems and assess their capacity to stratify the risk of malignancy in adnexal masses (AMs). Methods: A comprehensive search of MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar was conducted to identify articles published between January 2020 and August 2023. The quality of the studies, the risk of bias, and concerns regarding applicability were assessed using QUADAS-2. Results: The search yielded 132 citations. Five articles, which included a total of 2,448 AMs, were ultimately selected for inclusion. The risk of bias was high in all articles regarding patient selection, low in four studies for the index test, and unclear in three papers for the reference test. For GI-RADS, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 90.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 86.0% to 94.0%) and 91.5% (95% CI, 89.0% to 93.0%), respectively. For O-RADS, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 95.1% (95% CI, 93.0% to 97.0%) and 88.8% (95% CI, 85.0% to 92.0%), respectively. O-RADS demonstrated greater sensitivity for malignancy than GI-RADS (P<0.05). Heterogeneity was moderate for both sensitivity and specificity with respect to GIRADS; for O-RADS, heterogeneity was moderate for sensitivity and high for specificity. Conclusion Both GI-RADS and O-RADS US demonstrate good diagnostic performance in the preoperative assessment of AMs. However, the O-RADS classification provides superior sensitivity.

Background: and Purpose Visual hallucinations (VH) and subjective cognitive complaints (SCC) are associated with cognitive impairment (CI) in Parkinson’s disease. Our aims were to determine the association between VH and SCC and the risk of CI development in a cohort of patients with Parkinson’s disease and normal cognition (PD-NC). Methods: Patients with PD-NC (total score of >80 on the Parkinson’s Disease Cognitive Rating Scale [PD-CRS]) recruited from the Spanish COPPADIS cohort from January 2016 to November 2017 were followed up after 2 years. Subjects with a score of ≥1 on domain 5 and item 13 of the Non-Motor Symptoms Scale at baseline (V0) were considered as “with SCC” and “with VH,” respectively. CI at the 2-year follow-up (plus or minus 1 month) (V2) was defined as a PD-CRS total score of <81. Results: At V0 (n=376, 58.2% males, age 61.14±8.73 years [mean±SD]), the frequencies of VH and SCC were 13.6% and 62.2%, respectively. VH were more frequent in patients with SCC than in those without: 18.8% (44/234) vs 4.9% (7/142), p<0.0001. At V2, 15.2% (57/376) of the patients had developed CI. VH presenting at V0 was associated with a higher risk of CI at V2 (odds ratio [OR]=2.68, 95% confidence interval=1.05–6.83, p=0.039) after controlling for the effects of age, disease duration, education, medication, motor and nonmotor status, mood, and PD-CRS total score at V0. Although SCC were not associated with CI at V2, presenting both VH and SCC at V0 increased the probability of having CI at V2 (OR=3.71, 95% confidence interval=1.36–10.17, p=0.011). Conclusions VH were associated with the development of SCC and CI at the 2-year follow-up in patients with PD-NC.