Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24722822›Full record

SynthesisTumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine2014

Thyroid imaging reporting and data system (TI-RADS) in the diagnostic value of thyroid nodules: a systematic review.

Xi Wei, Ying Li, Sheng Zhang, Ming Gao

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Tumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Clinical Application of C-TIRADS Category and Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound in Differential Diagnosis of Solid Thyroid Nodules Measuring ≥1 cm.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Xi WeiDepartment of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Ultrasonography, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Ying Li
Sheng Zhang
Ming Gao

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This review was to assess the overall diagnostic accuracy of thyroid imaging reporting and data system (TI-RADS) classification in the differentiated diagnosis of patients with thyroid nodules. The diagnostic accuracy of TI-RADS was identified by using data from PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and other databases, which was from Jan 1966 to Dec 2013. Meta-analysis methods were used to obtain pooled sensitivity, specificity, negative likelihood ratio, positive likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio, and summary receiver operating characteristic curves. A total of five studies with 7,753 thyroid nodules enrolled met the inclusion criteria in this meta-analysis. TI-RADS had a pooled sensitivity of 0.75 (95 % confidence interval 0.72-0.78) and a pooled specificity of 0.69 (95 % confidence interval 0.68-0.70). The pooled diagnostic odds ratio was 24.28 (95 % confidence interval 14.25-41.38). The overall area under the curve was 0.9177, and the Q* index was 0.8304. The TI-RADS classification was the accurate diagnostic technique for differentiating thyroid nodules.

Indexed as

Diagnosis, DifferentialDiagnostic ImagingHumansPredictive Value of TestsThyroid GlandThyroid Nodule

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.