Jacobs I, Oram D, Fairbanks J, Turner J, Frost C, Grudzinskas JG. A risk of malignancy index incorporating CA 125, ultrasound and menopausal status for the accurate preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1990;97(10):922–9.

Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Tingulstad S, Hagen B, Skjeldestad FE, Onsrud M, Kiserud T, Halvorsen T, et al. Evaluation of a risk of malignancy index based on serum CA-125, ultrasound findings and menopausal status in the pre-operative diagnosis of pelvic masses. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1996;103:826–31.

Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Tingulstad S, Hagen B, Skjeldestad FE, Halvorsen T, Nustad K, Onsrud M. The risk-of-malignancy index to evaluate potential ovarian cancers in local hospitals. Obstet Gynecol. 1999;93:448–52.

Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Yamamoto Y, Yamada R, Oguri H, Maeda N, Fukaya T. Comparison of four malignancy risk indices in the preoperative evaluation of patients with pelvic masses. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009;144(2):163–7.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Royal College Of Obstetricians And Gynaecologists, British Society Of Gynaecological Endoscopy. Management of suspected ovarian masses in premenopausal women. Green top guidelines 62; 2011. https://www.rcog.org.uk/en/guidelines-research-services/guidelines/gtg62/.

Geomini P, Kruitwagen R, Bremer GL, Cnossen J, Mol BWJ. The accuracy of risk scores in predicting ovarian malignancy: a systematic review [review]. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113(2 Pt 1):384–94.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Meys EMJ, Kaijser J, Kruitwagen RFPM, Slangen BFM, Van Calster B, Aertgeerts B, et al. Subjective assessment versus ultrasound models to diagnose ovarian cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer. 2016;58:17–29.

Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Timmerman D, Testa AC, Bourne T, Ameye L, Jurkovic D, Van Holsbeke C, et al. Simple ultrasound-based rules for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008;31(6):681–90.

Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Practice bulletin: evaluation and management of adnexal masses. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128(5):e210–26.

Article  Google Scholar 

Auekitrungrueng R, Tinnangwattana D, Tantipalakorn C, Charoenratana C, Lerthiranwong T, Wanapirak C, et al. Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of International Ovarian Tumor Analysis simple rules and the risk of malignancy index to discriminate between benign and malignant adnexal masses. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2019;146(3):364–9.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Timmerman D, Ameye L, Fischerova D, Epstein E, Melis GB, Guerriero S, et al. Simple ultrasound rules to distinguish between benign and malignant adnexal masses before surgery: prospective validation by IOTA group. BMJ. 2010;341(1): c6839.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Hada A, Han LP, Chen Y, Hu QH, Yuan Y, Liu L. Comparison of the predictive performance of risk of malignancy indexes 1–4, HE4 and risk of malignancy algorithm in the triage of adnexal masses. J Ovarian Res. 2020;13(1):46.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Fathallah K, Huchon C, Bats A-S, Metzger U, Lefrère-Belda M-A, Bensaid C, et al. Validation externe des critères de Timmerman sur une série de 122 tumeurs ovariennes. Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2011;39(9):477–81.

Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Nunes N, Ambler G, Foo X, Naftalin J, Widschwendter M, Jurkovic D. Use of IOTA simple rules for diagnosis of ovarian cancer: meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014;44(5):503–14.

Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Alcázar JL, Pascual MÁ, Olartecoechea B, Graupera B, Aubá M, Ajossa S, et al. IOTA simple rules for discriminating between benign and malignant adnexal masses: prospective external validation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;42(4):467–71.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Guo Y, Zhao B, Zhou S, Wen L, Liu J, Fu Y, et al. A comparison of the diagnostic performance of the O-RADS, RMI4, IOTA LR2, and IOTA SR systems by senior and junior doctors. Ultrasonography. 2022;41:511–8.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Hartman CA, Juliato CR, Sarian LO, Toledo MC, Jales RM, Morais SS, et al. Ultrasound criteria and CA 125 as predictive variables of ovarian cancer in women with adnexal tumors. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012;40(3):360–6.

Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Garg S, Kaur A, Mohi JK, Sibia PK, Kaur N. Evaluation of IOTA simple ultrasound rules to distinguish benign and malignant ovarian tumours. J Clin Diagn Res. 2017;11(8):TC06-9.

PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Shetty J, Saradha A, Pandey D, Bhat R, Pratap Kumar K, Bharatnur S. IOTA simple ultrasound rules for triage of adnexal mass: experience from South India. J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2019;69(4):356–62.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Hiett AK, Sonek JD, Guy M, Reid TJ. Performance of IOTA Simple Rules, Simple Rules risk assessment, ADNEX model and O-RADS in differentiating between benign and malignant adnexal lesions in North American women. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2022;59(5):668–76.

Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar