
Fulltext:
152223.pdf
Embargo:
until further notice
Size:
130.3Kb
Format:
PDF
Description:
Publisher’s version
Publication year
2016Source
BJOG : an International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 123, 3, (2016), pp. 448-452ISSN
Publication type
Article / Letter to editor

Display more detailsDisplay less details
Organization
Gynaecology
Journal title
BJOG : an International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
Volume
vol. 123
Issue
iss. 3
Page start
p. 448
Page end
p. 452
Subject
Radboudumc 10: Reconstructive and regenerative medicine RIHS: Radboud Institute for Health Sciences; Radboudumc 17: Women's cancers RIHS: Radboud Institute for Health Sciences; Radboudumc 17: Women's cancers RIMLS: Radboud Institute for Molecular Life SciencesAbstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to validate the paediatric risk of malignancy index (PRMI), as previously published. DESIGN: External validation study. SETTING: Academic hospital: Radboud University Medical Center. POPULATION: Female paediatric patients under the age of 18 years diagnosed with, or treated for, an adnexal mass between January 1999 and October 2013. METHODS: Information was collected on diagnosis, presenting symptoms, and signs and imaging characteristics. The PRMI was calculated for each patient. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated, and the results were visualised using a receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC curve). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Histological diagnosis, discriminative performance using the area under the curve (AUC) of the ROC curve and sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: Seventy-eight patients were included, with a median age of 12 years. A malignant mass was found in 17 patients (21.8%). The PRMI with a cut-off value of 7 resulted in a sensitivity of 70.1% (95% CI 44.1-89.6%) and a specificity of 85.3% (95% CI 73.8-93.0%). The area under the ROC curve was 0.868 (95% CI 0.756-0.980). CONCLUSIONS: The PRMI showed less discriminative capacity than originally published, but its performance was still good; however, further prospective validation studies are needed to define whether the model is useful in daily clinical practice.
This item appears in the following Collection(s)
- Academic publications [227248]
- Electronic publications [108577]
- Faculty of Medical Sciences [86732]
Upload full text
Use your RU credentials (u/z-number and password) to log in with SURFconext to upload a file for processing by the repository team.