Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31740569›Full record

ArticleThe oncologist2020

A Multidisciplinary Head-to-Head Comparison of American College of Radiology Thyroid Imaging and Reporting Data System and American Thyroid Association Ultrasound Risk Stratification Systems.

Bernice L Huang, Susana A Ebner, Jasnit S Makkar, Stuart Bentley-Hibbert, Robert J McConnell, James A Lee, Elizabeth M Hecht, Jennifer H Kuo

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The oncologist, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Approach to the Patient With Thyrotoxicosis Using Telemedicine.The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 2020
    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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Bernice L HuangDepartment of Surgery, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1817-1858
Susana A EbnerDivision of Endocrinology, Department of Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.
Jasnit S MakkarDepartment of Radiology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.
Stuart Bentley-HibbertDepartment of Radiology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.
Robert J McConnellDivision of Endocrinology, Department of Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.
James A LeeThe Columbia Thyroid Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.
Elizabeth M HechtDepartment of Radiology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.
Jennifer H KuoThe Columbia Thyroid Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3745-9336
Columbia University Irving Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUltrasound plays a critical role in evaluating thyroid nodules. We compared the performance of the two most popular ultrasound malignancy risk stratification systems, the 2015 American Thyroid Association (ATA) guidelines and the American College of Radiology Thyroid Imaging and Reporting Data System (ACR TI-RADS). MATERIALS AND

methodsWe retrospectively identified 250 thyroid nodules that were surgically removed from 137 patients. Their ultrasound images were independently rated using both ATA and ACR TI-RADS by six raters with expertise in ultrasound interpretation. For each system, we generated a receiver operating characteristic curve and calculated the area under the curve (AUC).

resultsSixty-five (26%) nodules were malignant. There was "fair agreement" among raters for both ATA and ACR TI-RADS. Our observed malignancy risks for ATA and ACR TI-RADS categories were similar to expected risk thresholds with a few notable exceptions including the intermediate ATA risk category and the three highest risk categories for ACR TI-RADS. Biopsy of 226 of the 250 nodules would be indicated by ATA guidelines based on nodule size and mean ATA rating. One hundred forty-six nodules would be biopsied based on ACR TI-RADS. The sensitivity, specificity, and negative and positive predictive values were 92%, 10%, 79%, and 27%, respectively, for ATA and 74%, 47%, 84%, and 33%, respectively, for ACR TI-RADS. The AUC for ATA was 0.734 and for ACR TI-RADS was 0.718.

conclusionAlthough both systems demonstrated good diagnostic performance, ATA guidelines resulted in a greater number of thyroid biopsies and exhibited more consistent malignancy risk prediction for higher risk categories. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: With the rising incidence of thyroid nodules, the need for accurate detection of malignancy is important to avoid the overtreatment of benign nodules. Ultrasonography is one of the key tools for the evaluation of thyroid nodules, although the use of many different ultrasound risk stratification systems is a hindrance to clinical collaboration in everyday practice and the comparison of data in research. The first step toward the development of a universal thyroid nodule ultrasound malignancy risk stratification system is to better understand the strengths and weaknesses of the current systems in use.

Indexed as

RadiologyThyroid NeoplasmsThyroid NoduleData SystemsHumansRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentThyroid GlandUltrasonographyUnited StatesInterobserver variabilityThyroid cancerThyroid noduleUltrasonography

Identifiers

PMID31740569
PMCPMC7216459
OpenAlexW2986172467

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.