SynthesisFrontiers in endocrinology2022
Conventional ultrasonography and elastosonography in diagnosis of malignant thyroid nodules: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in endocrinology, 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.
- Machine Learning for diagnosis of malignant thyroid nodules based on thyroid ultrasound: Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies with external datasets.European journal of radiology open · 2026Article
- Contrast-enhanced ultrasound time-intensity curve-assisted parametric imaging: a possible effective tool for differential diagnosis of thyroid nodules.Gland surgery · 2026Article
- Comparative diagnostic performance of C-TIRADS versus Kwak TI-RADS for thyroid nodules: implications for fine-needle aspiration biopsy referral.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- An interpretable multimodal machine learning model for predicting malignancy of thyroid nodules in low-resource scenarios.BMC endocrine disorders · 2025Article
- Predictive Value of Arterial Enhancement Fraction Derived from Dual-Layer Spectral Computed Tomography for Thyroid Microcarcinoma.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Management of Thyroid Nodules.Sisli Etfal Hastanesi tip bulteni · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the diagnostic value of conventional ultrasound and elastosonography in malignant thyroid nodules by meta-analysis. Methods: The literature included in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase were searched by using "elastosonography, ultrasonography, thyroid nodules" as the keywords. The clinical studies using elastosonography and conventional ultrasound to diagnose thyroid nodules were selected, and histopathology of thyroid nodules was used as reference standards. The quality evaluation and heterogeneity test were performed on the literature that met the requirements, the combined specificity and sensitivity were pooled, and a comprehensive ROC curve analysis was performed. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) tool was utilized to evaluate the quality of each included study. Meta-DiSc version 1.4, StataSE 12 and Review Manager 5.4 were used. Results: A total of nine studies assessed 3066 thyroid nodules (2043 benign and 1023 malignant). The pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and DOR of conventional ultrasound for the diagnose of malignant thyroid nodules were 0.833 (95% CI 0.809-0.855), 0.818 (95% CI 0.801-0.835), 4.85 (95% CI 4.36-5.39), 0.20 (95% CI 0.17-0.23), and 29.38 (95% CI 23.28-37.08), respectively, with an AUC of 0.9068. Also, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and DOR of elastosonography were 0.774 (95% CI 0.741-0.804), 0.737 (95% CI 0.715-0.758), 3.14(95% CI 2.85-3.47), 0.29 (95% CI 0.25-0.34), and 9.35 (95% CI 7.63-11.46), respectively, with an AUC of 0.8801. Three studies provided data regarding the conventional ultrasound and elastosonography. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, DOR, and AUC were 0.902 (95% CI 0.870-0.928), 0.649 (95% CI 0.616-0.681), 2.72 (95% CI 2.46-3.00), 0.14 (95% CI 0.11-0.19), 25.51 (95%CI 17.11-38.03), and 0.9294. Conclusion: The existing evidence shows that elastosonography cannot completely replace conventional ultrasound in the diagnosis of malignant thyroid nodules, and the combination of elastosonography and conventional ultrasound gives a better diagnostic precision. Systematic review registration: www.crd.york.ac.uk, identifier PROSPERO CRD42022375808.
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.