Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32356157›Full record

SynthesisEuropean radiology2020

Accuracy of thyroid imaging reporting and data system category 4 or 5 for diagnosing malignancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Dong Hwan Kim, Sae Rom Chung, Sang Hyun Choi, Kyung Won Kim

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

4 authors.

Dong Hwan KimDepartment of Radiology, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 222 Banpo-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul, 06591, Republic of Korea.
Sae Rom ChungDepartment of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88 Olympic-Ro 43-Gil, Songpa-Gu, Seoul, 05505, Republic of Korea.
Sang Hyun ChoiDepartment of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88 Olympic-Ro 43-Gil, Songpa-Gu, Seoul, 05505, Republic of Korea. edwardchoi83@gmail.com.
Kyung Won KimDepartment of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88 Olympic-Ro 43-Gil, Songpa-Gu, Seoul, 05505, Republic of Korea.

Funding

National Research Foundation of Korea NRF-2019R1G1A1099743
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo determine the accuracies of the American College of Radiology (ACR)-thyroid imaging reporting and data systems (TIRADS), Korean (K)-TIRADS, and European (EU)-TIRADS for diagnosing malignancy in thyroid nodules.

methodsOriginal studies reporting the diagnostic accuracy of TIRADS for determining malignancy on ultrasound were identified in MEDLINE and EMBASE up to June 23, 2019. The meta-analytic summary sensitivity and specificity were obtained for TIRADS category 5 (TR-5) and category 4 or 5 (TR-4/5), using a bivariate random effects model. To explore study heterogeneity, meta-regression analyses were performed.

resultsOf the 34 eligible articles (37,585 nodules), 25 used ACR-TIRADS, 12 used K-TIRADS, and seven used EU-TIRADS. For TR-5, the meta-analytic sensitivity was highest for EU-TIRADS (78% [95% confidence interval, 64-88%]), followed by ACR-TIRADS (70% [61-79%]) and K-TIRADS (64% [58-70%]), although the differences were not significant. K-TIRADS showed the highest meta-analytic specificity (93% [91-95%]), which was similar to ACR-TIRADS (89% [85-92%]) and EU-TIRADS (89% [77-95%]). For TR-4/5, all three TIRADS systems had sensitivities higher than 90%. K-TIRADS had the highest specificity (61% [50-72%]), followed by ACR-TIRADS (49% [43-56%]) and EU-TIRADS (48% [35-62%]), although the differences were not significant. Considerable threshold effects were noted with ACR- and K-TIRADS (p ≤ 0.01), with subject enrollment, country of origin, experience level of reviewer, number of patients, and clarity of blinding in review being the main causes of heterogeneity (p ≤ 0.05).

conclusionsThere was no significant difference among these three international TIRADS, but the trend toward higher sensitivity with EU-TIRADS and higher specificity with K-TIRADS. KEY POINTS: • For TIRADS category 5, the meta-analytic sensitivity was highest for the EU-TIRADS, followed by the ACR-TIRADS and the K-TIRADS, although the differences were not significant. • For TIRADS category 5, K-TIRADS showed the highest meta-analytic specificity, which was similar to ACR-TIRADS and EU-TIRADS. • Considerable threshold effects were noted with ACR- and K-TIRADS, with subject enrollment, country of origin, experience level of reviewer, number of patients, and clarity of blinding in review being the main causes of heterogeneity.

Indexed as

Biopsy, Fine-NeedleData SystemsEuropeHumansRegression AnalysisReproducibility of ResultsRepublic of KoreaResearch DesignSensitivity and SpecificityThyroid NeoplasmsThyroid NoduleUltrasonographyUnited StatesDiagnostic imagingMeta-analysisSystematic reviewThyroid neoplasmsUltrasonography

Identifiers

PMID32356157

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.