ReviewCancers2022
Diagnostic Performance of ACR and Kwak TI-RADS for Benign and Malignant Thyroid Nodules: An Update Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Integration of BRAF V600E mutation with contrast-enhanced ultrasound parameters provides complementary diagnostic value for malignant thyroid nodules.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Blood leukocytes as a non-invasive diagnostic tool for thyroid nodules: a prospective cohort study.BMC medicine · 2024Article
- Using multimodal ultrasound including full-time-series contrast-enhanced ultrasound cines for identifying the nature of thyroid nodules.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Article
- Comparison of Diagnostic Values of ACR TI-RADS versus C-TIRADS Scoring and Classification Systems for the Elderly Thyroid Cancers.International journal of general medicine · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
(1) Background: To determine the optimal cut-off values of two risk stratification systems to discriminate malignant thyroid nodules and to compare the diagnostic performance; (2) Methods: True and false positive and negative data were collected, and methodological quality was assessed for forty-six studies involving 39,085 patients; (3) Results: The highest area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) of ACR and Kwak TI-RADS were 0.875 and 0.884. Based on the optimal sensitivity and specificity, the highest accuracy values of ROC curves or diagnostic odds ratios (DOR) were taken as the cut-off values for TR4 (moderate suspicious) and 4B. The sensitivity, specificity, DOR, and AUC by ACR (TR4) and Kwak TI-RADS (4B) for malignancy risk stratification of thyroid nodules were 94.3% and 96.4%; 52.2% and 53.7%; 17.5185 and 31.8051; 0.786 and 0.884, respectively. There were no significant differences in diagnostic accuracy in any of the direction comparisons of the two systems; (4) Conclusions: ACR and Kwak TI-RADS had good diagnostic performances (AUCs > 85%). Although we determined the best cut-off values in individual risk stratification systems based on statistical assessment, clinicians can adjust the optimal cut-off value according to the clinical purpose of the ultrasonography because raising or lowering cut-points leads to reciprocal changes in sensitivity and specificity.
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.