Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30830584›Full record

ArticleEndocrine2019

Comparison and preliminary discussion of the reasons for the differences in diagnostic performance and unnecessary FNA biopsies between the ACR TIRADS and 2015 ATA guidelines.

Xiao-Li Wu, Jia-Rui Du, Hui Wang, Chun-Xiang Jin, Guo-Qing Sui, Dong-Yan Yang, Yuan-Qiang Lin, Qiang Luo, Ping Fu, He-Qun Li and 1 more

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Endocrine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

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

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Xiao-Li WuDepartment of Ultrasound, The First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, 130000, Jilin, China.
Jia-Rui DuDepartment of Ultrasound, China-Japan Union Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, 130000, Jilin, China.
Hui WangDepartment of Ultrasound, China-Japan Union Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, 130000, Jilin, China.
Chun-Xiang JinDepartment of Ultrasound, China-Japan Union Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, 130000, Jilin, China.
Guo-Qing SuiDepartment of Ultrasound, China-Japan Union Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, 130000, Jilin, China.
Dong-Yan YangDepartment of Ultrasound, China-Japan Union Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, 130000, Jilin, China.
Yuan-Qiang LinDepartment of Ultrasound, China-Japan Union Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, 130000, Jilin, China.
Qiang LuoDepartment of Ultrasound, China-Japan Union Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, 130000, Jilin, China.
Ping FuDepartment of Ultrasound, China-Japan Union Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, 130000, Jilin, China.
He-Qun LiDepartment of Ultrasound, China-Japan Union Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, 130000, Jilin, China.
Deng-Ke TengDepartment of Ultrasound, China-Japan Union Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, 130000, Jilin, China. tengdke@163.com.ORCID 0000-0003-4266-8941
Union Hospital · CNJilin University · CN

Funding

Health and Family Planning Commission of Jilin Province (CN) NO.2016ZC032Jilin Province Science and Technology Department 20170414042GHthe Finance Department of Jilin Province SCZSY201701
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectives(1) To compare the American College of Radiology (ACR) thyroid imaging reporting and data system (TIRADS) and American Thyroid Association (ATA) guidelines for thyroid nodules with regard to diagnostic performance and effectiveness at reducing the number of fine-needle aspiration (FNA) biopsies and to preliminarily discuss the reasons for the differences and (2) to compare the diagnostic performance of the two guidelines in the subgroup of nodules <1 cm in diameter. MATERIALS AND

methodsIn the present study, 1000 thyroid nodules in 894 consecutive patients with final diagnoses were included; these thyroid nodules were investigated via FNA biopsies in our hospital. The ultrasound (US) features of the thyroid nodules were reviewed and stratified according to the categories defined by the ACR TIRADS and ATA guidelines.

resultsCompared with the ACR TIRADS guidelines, the ATA guidelines had a higher sensitivity (93.4% (P < 0.001)) and a larger negative predictive value (NPV) (85.3% (P= 0.034)). Compared with the ATA guidelines, the ACR TIRADS guidelines had a higher specificity (66.0% (P < 0.001)), a greater PPV (73.6% (P= 0.001)), and greater accuracy (75.5% (P= 0.017)). Compared with the ATA guidelines, the ACR TIRADS guidelines resulted in significantly fewer unnecessary FNA biopsies (P= 0.007).

conclusionsThis study suggests that both the ACR TIRADS and ATA guidelines have unique strengths with regard to their diagnostic performance. In terms of reducing the number of FNA biopsies, the ACR TIRADS guidelines were superior to the ATA guidelines.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicBiopsy, Fine-NeedleChinaCohort StudiesDiagnosis, DifferentialDiagnostic Techniques, EndocrineHumansPredictive Value of TestsPreliminary DataRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificitySocieties, MedicalThyroid GlandThyroid NeoplasmsThyroid NoduleTumor BurdenThyroid cancerThyroid noduleUltrasound diagnosis

Identifiers

PMID30830584
OpenAlexW2919308115

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.