Fang Xu

Comparison of the diagnostic efficiency between the O-RADS US risk stratification system and doctors’ subjective judgment

Abstract Background This study aimed to compare the diagnostic efficiency of Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) and doctors’ subjective judgment in diagnosing the malignancy risk of adnexal masses. Methods This was an analysis of 616 adnexal masses between 2017 and 2020. The clinical findings, preoperative ultrasound images, and pathological diagnosis were recorded. Each adnexal mass was evaluated by doctors’ subjective judgment and O-RADS by two senior doctors and two junior doctors. A mass with an O-RADS grade of 1 to 3 was a benign tumor, and a mass with an O-RADS grade of 4–5 was a malignant tumor. All outcomes were compared with the pathological diagnosis. Results Of the 616 adnexal masses, 469 (76.1%) were benign, and 147 (23.9%) were malignant. There was no difference between the area under the curve of O-RADS and the subjective judgment for junior doctors (0.83 (95% CI: 0.79–0.87) vs. 0.79 (95% CI: 0.76–0.83), p = 0.0888). The areas under the curve of O-RADS and subjective judgment were equal for senior doctors (0.86 (95% CI: 0.83–0.89) vs. 0.86 (95% CI: 0.83–0.90), p = 0.8904). O-RADS had much higher sensitivity than the subjective judgment in detecting malignant tumors for junior doctors (84.4% vs. 70.1%) and senior doctors (91.2% vs. 81.0%). In the subgroup analysis for detecting the main benign lesions of the mature cystic teratoma and ovarian endometriosic cyst, the junior doctors’ diagnostic accuracy was obviously worse than the senior doctors’ on using O-RADS. Conclusions O-RADS had excellent performance in predicting malignant adnexal masses. It could compensate for the lack of experience of junior doctors to a certain extent. Better performance in discriminating various benign lesions should be expected with some complement.

Understanding primary care providers’ attitudes towards preventive screenings to patients with inflammatory bowel disease

Background Preventive care is important for managing inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), yet primary care providers (PCPs) often face challenges in delivering such care due to discomfort and unfamiliarity with IBD-specific guidelines. This study aims to assess PCPs’ attitudes towards, and practices in, providing preventive screenings for IBD patients, highlighting areas for improvement in guideline dissemination and education. Methods Using a web-based opt-in panel of PCPs (DocStyles survey, spring 2022), we assessed PCPs’ comfort level with providing/recommending screenings and the reasons PCPs felt uncomfortable (n = 1,503). Being likely to provide/recommend screenings for depression/anxiety, skin cancer, osteoporosis, and cervical cancer were compared by PCPs’ comfort level and frequency of seeing patients with IBD. We estimated adjusted odd ratios (AORs) of being likely to recommend screenings and selecting responses aligned with IBD-specific guidelines by use of clinical practice methods. Results About 72% of PCPs reported being comfortable recommending screenings to patients with IBD. The top reason identified for not feeling comfortable was unfamiliarity with IBD-specific screening guidelines (55%). Being comfortable was significantly associated with being likely to provide/recommend depression/anxiety (AOR = 3.99) and skin cancer screenings (AOR = 3.19) compared to being uncomfortable or unsure. Percentages of responses aligned with IBD-specific guidelines were lower than those aligned with general population guidelines for osteoporosis (21.7% vs. 27.8%) and cervical cancer screenings (34.9% vs. 43.9%), and responses aligned with IBD-specific guidelines did not differ by comfort level for both screenings. Timely review of guidelines specific to immunosuppressed patients was associated with being likely to provide/recommend screenings and selecting responses aligned with IBD-specific guidelines. Conclusions Despite a general comfort among PCPs in recommending preventive screenings for IBD patients, gaps in knowledge regarding IBD-specific screening guidelines persist. Enhancing awareness and understanding of these guidelines through targeted education and resource provision may bridge this gap.