Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26131184›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of clinical and experimental medicine2015

Prospective validation of an ultrasound-based thyroid imaging reporting and data system (TI-RADS) on 3980 thyroid nodules.

Jing Zhang, Bo-Ji Liu, Hui-Xiong Xu, Jun-Mei Xu, Yi-Feng Zhang, Chang Liu, Jian Wu, Li-Ping Sun, Le-Hang Guo, Lin-Na Liu and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of clinical and experimental medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

12 authors.

Jing ZhangDepartment of Medical Ultrasound, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine Shanghai, China ; Thyroid Institute, Tongji University School of Medicine Shanghai 200072, China.
Bo-Ji LiuDepartment of Medical Ultrasound, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine Shanghai, China ; Thyroid Institute, Tongji University School of Medicine Shanghai 200072, China.
Hui-Xiong XuDepartment of Medical Ultrasound, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine Shanghai, China ; Thyroid Institute, Tongji University School of Medicine Shanghai 200072, China ; Department of Ultrasound, Guangdong Medical College Affiliated Hospital Zhanjiang, China.
Jun-Mei XuDepartment of Medical Ultrasound, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine Shanghai, China ; Thyroid Institute, Tongji University School of Medicine Shanghai 200072, China.
Yi-Feng ZhangDepartment of Medical Ultrasound, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine Shanghai, China ; Thyroid Institute, Tongji University School of Medicine Shanghai 200072, China.
Chang LiuDepartment of Medical Ultrasound, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine Shanghai, China ; Thyroid Institute, Tongji University School of Medicine Shanghai 200072, China.
Jian WuDepartment of Medical Ultrasound, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine Shanghai, China ; Thyroid Institute, Tongji University School of Medicine Shanghai 200072, China.
Li-Ping SunDepartment of Medical Ultrasound, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine Shanghai, China ; Thyroid Institute, Tongji University School of Medicine Shanghai 200072, China.
Le-Hang GuoDepartment of Medical Ultrasound, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine Shanghai, China ; Thyroid Institute, Tongji University School of Medicine Shanghai 200072, China.
Lin-Na LiuDepartment of Medical Ultrasound, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine Shanghai, China ; Thyroid Institute, Tongji University School of Medicine Shanghai 200072, China.
Xiao-Hong XuDepartment of Ultrasound, Guangdong Medical College Affiliated Hospital Zhanjiang, China.
Shen QuThyroid Institute, Tongji University School of Medicine Shanghai 200072, China ; Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine Shanghai 200072, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveUltrasound (US) features of solidity, hypoechogenicity or marked hypoechogenicity, microlobulated or irregular margins, microcalcifications, and taller-than-wide shape are suspicious characteristics for thyroid nodules. An US based Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data System (TI-RADS) is classified based on the number of aforesaid features. TI-RADS category 3 included nodules without any suspicious features, and categories 4a, 4b, 4c, and 5 included nodules with one, two, three or four, or five suspicious US features. The purpose of the study was to prospectively validate the effectiveness of the TI-RADS.

methodsFrom October 2011 to June 2013, we prospectively categorized 3980 thyroid nodules (3752 benign and 228 malignant lesions) in 2921 patients using TI-RADS classification. TI-RADS categories 2 and 3 were considered as benign whereas TI-RADS categories 4 and 5 as malignant. The sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), positive predictive value (PPV) and accuracy were calculated.

resultsOf the 3980 nodules, 2953 nodules were TI-RADS category 2 (0% malignancy), 466 nodules TI-RADS category 3 (1.3% malignancy), 186 nodules TI-RADS category 4a (4.8% malignancy), 165 nodules TI-RADS category 4b (30.3% malignancy), 188 nodules TI-RADS category 4c (75.5% malignancy), and 22 nodules TI-RADS category 5 (95.5% malignancy). The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy were 97%, 90%, 40%, 99%, and 91%, respectively.

conclusionsTI-RADS classification had great diagnostic value in diagnosing thyroid nodules. The actual probability of malignancy was in accord with the theory risk of malignancy.

Indexed as

diagnosisThyroid imaging reporting and data system (TI-RADS)thyroid noduleultrasound

Identifiers

PMID26131184
PMCPMC4484032

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.