Inter-reader reliability of Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System US: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Purpose: Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) US provides a standardized lexicon for ovarian and adnexal lesions, facilitating risk stratification based on morphological features for malignancy assessment, which is essential for proper management. However, systematic determination of i...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Abdominal Radiology Vol. 50; no. 8; pp. 3806 - 3816
Autores principales: Bae, Sang Min, Kim, Dong Hwan, Kang, Ji Hun
Formato: Journal Article
Publicado: Springer Nature Aug2025
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
Descripción
Sumario:Purpose: Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) US provides a standardized lexicon for ovarian and adnexal lesions, facilitating risk stratification based on morphological features for malignancy assessment, which is essential for proper management. However, systematic determination of inter-reader reliability in O-RADS US categorization remains unexplored. This study aimed to systematically determine the inter-reader reliability of O-RADS US categorization and identify the factors that affect it. Methods: Original articles reporting the inter-reader reliability of O-RADS US in lesion categorization were identified in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases from January 2018 to December 2023. DerSimonian-Laird random-effects models were used to determine the meta-analytic pooled inter-reader reliability of the O-RADS US categorization. Subgroup meta-regression analysis was performed to identify the factors causing study heterogeneity. Results: Fourteen original articles with 5139 ovarian and adnexal lesions were included. The inter-reader reliability of O-RADS US in lesion categorization ranged from 0.71 to 0.99, with a meta-analytic pooled estimate of 0.83 (95% CI, 0.78–0.88), indicating almost perfect reliability. Substantial study heterogeneity was observed in the inter-reader reliability of the O-RADS US categorization (I2 = 96.9). In subgroup meta-regression analysis, reader experience was the only factor associated with study heterogeneity. Pooled inter-reader reliability of the O-RADS US categorization was higher in studies with all experienced readers (0.86; 95% CI, 0.81–0.91) compared to those with multiple readers including trainees (0.74; 95% CI, 0.70–0.78; P = 0.009). The inter-reader reliability of US descriptors ranged from 0.39 to 0.97, with ascites and peritoneal nodules showing almost perfect reliability (0.79− 0.97). Conclusion: The O-RADS US risk stratification system demonstrated almost perfect inter-reader reliability in lesion categorization. Our results highlight the importance of targeted training and descriptor simplification to improve inter-reader reliability and clinical adoption.