Copyright
©The Author(s) 2023.
World J Clin Cases. Nov 6, 2023; 11(31): 7553-7561
Published online Nov 6, 2023. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v11.i31.7553
Published online Nov 6, 2023. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v11.i31.7553
Table 5 Comparison of diagnostic efficiency of different methods
| Method | Diagnostic accuracy (%) | Diagnostic sensitivity (%) | Diagnostic specificity (%) |
| US | 78.18 (86/110) | 80.00 (48/60) | 76.00 (38/50) |
| MRI | 84.55 (93/110) | 85.00 (51/60) | 84.00 (42/50) |
| Tumor marker | 86.36 (95/110) | 81.67 (49/60) | 92.00 (46/50) |
| Joint detection method | 99.09 (109/110) | 98.33 (59/60) | 100.00 (50/50) |
| χ2 | 22.705 | 16.590 | 30.303 |
| P value | 0.000 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
- Citation: Yang Q, Zhang H, Ma PQ, Peng B, Yin GT, Zhang NN, Wang HB. Value of ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging combined with tumor markers in the diagnosis of ovarian tumors. World J Clin Cases 2023; 11(31): 7553-7561
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2307-8960/full/v11/i31/7553.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v11.i31.7553