Author ROMA cutoff point [%] SENSITIVITY [%] SPECIFICITY [%] PPV [%] NPV [%]
All PM M All PM M All PM M All PM M
Moore et al. [15] M-27.7
PM-13.1
88.7 76.5 92.3 74.7 74.8 74.7 60.1 33.8 74.0 93.9 95 92.6
Molina et al. [19] M-27.7
PM-13.1
90.1 74.1 95.2 87.7 88.9 83.1 74 44.4 88.9 95.8 96.6 92.5
Moore et al. [17] M-27.7
PM-13.1
88.1 81.3 90.2 74.9 74.2 76 38.1 17.8 56.1 97.3 98.3 95.8
Anton et al. [14] M-39.7
PM-13.9
75.9 77.8 63.9 81.8 79.3 97.3 - - - - - -
Partheen et al. [33] M   -26
PM-17.
- 75 75 - 81 87.1 - 60.7 62.8 - 90.7 90.7
Van Gorp et al. [22] M- 12.5
PM-14.4
84.7 66.7 91.0 76.8 87.8 58.8 71 60.5 74.3 88.2 90.4 83.3
Novotny et al. [13] M-37.7% - - 85.7 - - 95 - - 62.06 - - 98.65
ROMA this study M-27.7
PM-13.1
88 76.2 91.9 88.5 91.6 80.6 83 66.7 88.7 92.1 94.6 85.3
ROMA this study M-41.1
PM-18.04
85.5 76.2 88.7 95.4 96.8 91.7 92.2 84.2 87.5 91.2 94.8 82.5
All – PM+M; PM – Premenopause; M – Postmenopause
Table 6: Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of ROMA for the stratification of patients with a pelvic mass reported in the literature and found by us.