108 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9339526)
1. Transvaginal ultrasonographic characterization of ovarian masses: comparison of five scoring systems in a multicenter study.
Ferrazzi E; Zanetta G; Dordoni D; Berlanda N; Mezzopane R; Lissoni AA
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 1997 Sep; 10(3):192-7. PubMed ID: 9339526
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Benign and malignant ovarian masses: selection of the most discriminating gray-scale and Doppler sonographic features.
Brown DL; Doubilet PM; Miller FH; Frates MC; Laing FC; DiSalvo DN; Benson CB; Lerner MH
Radiology; 1998 Jul; 208(1):103-10. PubMed ID: 9646799
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. [Sonographic characterization, Doppler ultrasonography and tumor markers in the diagnosis of malignancy of ovarian masses].
Gramellini D; Rutolo S; Verrotti C; Piantelli G; Fieni S; Vadora E
Minerva Ginecol; 2001 Feb; 53(1):1-11. PubMed ID: 11279390
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Assessing clinical performance of gynecology residents: sonographic evaluation of adnexal masses based on morphological scoring systems.
Lee TS; Kim JW; Park NH; Song YS; Kang SB; Lee HP
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2005 Dec; 26(7):776-9. PubMed ID: 16308902
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Transvaginal sonographic characterization of ovarian disease: evaluation of a new scoring system to predict ovarian malignancy.
Sassone AM; Timor-Tritsch IE; Artner A; Westhoff C; Warren WB
Obstet Gynecol; 1991 Jul; 78(1):70-6. PubMed ID: 2047071
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Diagnostic value of endosonography scoring systems in the detection of ovarian and endometrial carcinoma.
Djurdjevic S; Stojanovic S; Kopitovic V; Hadnadjev D; Basta-Nikolic M
J BUON; 2009; 14(1):97-102. PubMed ID: 19373954
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Combination of GI-RADS and 3D-CEUS for differential diagnosis of ovarian masses.
Wang X; Yang S; Lv G; Liao J; Wu S; Zhang W
Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992); 2019 Aug; 65(7):959-964. PubMed ID: 31389505
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. [Diagnostic importance of the sonographic scoring system in differentiating between malignant and benign ovarian tumors].
Durdević S
Med Pregl; 2001; 54(3-4):161-5. PubMed ID: 11759208
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Artificial neural network models for the preoperative discrimination between malignant and benign adnexal masses.
Timmerman D; Verrelst H; Bourne TH; De Moor B; Collins WP; Vergote I; Vandewalle J
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 1999 Jan; 13(1):17-25. PubMed ID: 10201082
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Doppler sonography of adnexal masses: the predictive value of the pulsatility index in benign and malignant disease.
Salem S; White LM; Lai J
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1994 Nov; 163(5):1147-50. PubMed ID: 7976891
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. An ultrasonographic morphological index for prediction of ovarian tumor malignancy.
Szpurek D; Moszynski R; Zietkowiak W; Spaczynski M; Sajdak S
Eur J Gynaecol Oncol; 2005; 26(1):51-4. PubMed ID: 15755001
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Comparison of the five sonographic morphology scoring systems for the diagnosis of malignant ovarian tumors.
Klangsin S; Suntharasaj T; Suwanrath C; Kor-Anantakul O; Prasartwanakit V
Gynecol Obstet Invest; 2013; 76(4):248-53. PubMed ID: 24192793
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Ultrasonographic evaluation of ovarian mass for predicting malignancy in pregnant women.
Lee SJ; Kim YH; Lee MY; Ko HS; Oh SY; Seol HJ; Kim JW; Ahn KH; Na S; Seong WJ; Kim HS; Park CW; Park JS; Jun JK; Won HS; Kim MY; Hwang HS; Lee SM
Gynecol Oncol; 2021 Nov; 163(2):385-391. PubMed ID: 34561098
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Sonography of ovarian masses: poor sensitivity of resistive index for identifying malignant lesions.
Levine D; Feldstein VA; Babcook CJ; Filly RA
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1994 Jun; 162(6):1355-9. PubMed ID: 8191998
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Transvaginal ultrasonographic characterization of ovarian masses with an improved, weighted scoring system.
Lerner JP; Timor-Tritsch IE; Federman A; Abramovich G
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 1994 Jan; 170(1 Pt 1):81-5. PubMed ID: 8296849
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Sonographic morphological pattern in the pre-operative prediction of ovarian masses.
Benjapibal M; Sunsaneevitayakul P; Phatihattakorn C; Suphanit I; Iamurairat W
J Med Assoc Thai; 2003 Apr; 86(4):332-7. PubMed ID: 12757077
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Differentiation of benign and malignant adnexal masses: relative value of gray-scale, color Doppler, and spectral Doppler sonography.
Stein SM; Laifer-Narin S; Johnson MB; Roman LD; Muderspach LI; Tyszka JM; Ralls PW
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1995 Feb; 164(2):381-6. PubMed ID: 7839975
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Sonographic morphology scores (SMS) for differentiation between benign and malignant adnexal masses.
Wanapirak C; Srisupundit K; Tongsong T
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev; 2006; 7(3):407-10. PubMed ID: 17059332
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Differentiation between benign and malignant ovarian tumours by ultrasonography.
Tuladhar AS; Pradhan S
Nepal Med Coll J; 2005 Dec; 7(2):119-24. PubMed ID: 16519078
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Evaluation of adnexal masses using three-dimensional ultrasonographic technology: preliminary report.
Chan L; Lin WM; Uerpairojkit B; Hartman D; Reece EA; Helm W
J Ultrasound Med; 1997 May; 16(5):349-54. PubMed ID: 9315174
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
