SynthesisPloS one2022
Diagnostic accuracy of S-Detect in distinguishing benign and malignant thyroid nodules: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Performance Evaluation of Deep Learning for the Detection and Segmentation of Thyroid Nodules: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- Comparison of artificial intelligence, elastic imaging, and the thyroid imaging reporting and data system in the differential diagnosis of suspicious nodules.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
- Comparison of the C-TIRADS, ACR-TIRADS, and ATA guidelines in malignancy risk stratification of thyroid nodules.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesIn this meta-analysis study, the main objective was to determine the accuracy of S-detect in effectively distinguishing malignant thyroid nodules from benign thyroid nodules.
methodsWe searched the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and CBM databases from inception to August 1, 2021. Meta-analysis was conducted using STATA version 14.0 and Meta-Disc version 1.4 softwares. We calculated summary statistics for sensitivity (Sen), specificity (Spe), positive and negative likelihood ratio (LR+/LR-), diagnostic odds ratio(DOR), and receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves. Cochran's Q-statistic and I2 test were used to evaluate potential heterogeneity between studies. A sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the influence of single studies on the overall estimate. We also performed meta-regression analyses to investigate the potential sources of heterogeneity.
resultsIn this study, a total of 17 studies meeting the requirements of the standard were used. The number of benign and malignant nodules analyzed and evaluated in this paper was 1595 and 1118 respectively. This paper mainly completes the required histological confirmation through s-detect. The pooled Sen and pooled Spe were 0.87 and 0.74, respectively, (95%CI = 0.84-0.89) and (95%CI = 0.66-0.81). Furthermore, the pooled LR+ and negative LR- were determined to be 3.37 (95%CI = 2.53-4.50) and 0.18 (95%CI = 0.15-0.21), respectively. The experimental results showed that the pooled DOR of thyroid nodules was 18.83 (95% CI = 13.21-26.84). In addition, area under SROC curve was determined to be 0.89 (SE = 0.0124). It should be pointed out that there is no evidence of bias (i.e. t = 0.25, P = 0.80).
conclusionsThrough this meta-analysis, it can be seen that the accuracy of s-detect is relatively high for the effective distinction between malignant thyroid nodules and benign thyroid nodules.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.