Table 2 Diagnostic performance of RMI and ROMA algorithms in the subset of studies cited in this article
From: Biomarkers and algorithms for diagnosis of ovarian cancer: CA125, HE4, RMI and ROMA, a review
Systematic review or meta-analysis | RMI | ROMA | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Se (%) (95% IC) | Sp (%) (95% IC) | PPV (%) | NPV (%) | AUC (95% IC) | Se (%) (95% IC) | Sp (%) (95% IC) | PPV (%) | NPV (%) | AUC (95% IC) | ||
Ferraro et al. [14] | X | ||||||||||
Dikmen et al. [15] | 88 | 0.96 | |||||||||
Chen et al. [19] | 97 | 80 | 0.97 (0.95–1) | ||||||||
Yanaranop et al. [31] | 78 | 80 | 60 | 90 | 0.88 (0.83–0.93) | 84 | 69 | 52 | 91 | 0.86 (0.81–0.91) | |
Wilailak et al. [32] | 0.84 (0.77–0.91) | 0.86 (0.81–0.91) | |||||||||
Wang et al. [36] | X | 85 (81–89) | 82 (77–87) | 0.91 (0.88–0.93) | |||||||
Zhen et al. [37] | X | ||||||||||
Abdel-Azeez et al. [45] | |||||||||||
Holcomb et al. [46] | |||||||||||
Moore et al. [48] | |||||||||||
Goff et al. [52] | |||||||||||
Meys et al. [55] | X | 75 (72–79) | 92 (88–94) | ||||||||
Van Gorp et al. [56] | |||||||||||
Al Musalhi et al. [57] | 77 | 82 | 56 | 93 | 0.85 | 75 | 88 | 65 | 92 | 0.84 | |
Moore et al. [62] | |||||||||||
Li et al. [64] | X | 89 (84–93) | 83 (77–88) | 0.93 (0.90–0.95) | |||||||
Wei et al. [66] | 94 | 93 | 90 | 86 | |||||||
Sandri et al. [67] | 89 | 81 | 0.93 (0.90–0.96) | ||||||||