ArticlePloS one2024
Evaluating diagnostic accuracy and agreement of TI-RADS scoring in thyroid nodules: A comparative analysis between sonographers and radiologists.
Article in PloS one, 2024. 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
- Observational
- Scanning the evidence: A pilot study evaluating the accuracy of sonographer reporting in the Republic of Ireland.Ultrasound (Leeds, England) · 2026Article
- Comparative Diagnostic Performance of Ultrasound-Based Risk Stratification Systems in Thyroid Nodule Evaluations by Otolaryngologists.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Inter-reader agreement and additive benefit of SPECT or SPECT/CT modality with [EJNMMI reports · 2025Article
- Circulating Biomarkers of Thyroid Cancer: An Appraisal.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
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
objectiveThe Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data System (TI-RADS) is an essential tool for assessing thyroid nodules, primarily used by radiologists. This study aimed to compare the agreement of TI-RADS scores between sonographers and radiologists and to assess the diagnostic performance of these scores against histological findings in suspicious thyroid nodules.
methodsIn a retrospective analysis, 168 patients with suspicious thyroid nodules classified as TR3 and above by the radiologists were included. Both sonographers and radiologists independently assigned the American College of Radiologists (ACR) TI-RADS scores, which were then compared for inter-reader agreement using Cohen's Kappa statistic. The scores were also evaluated for diagnostic performance against histological results based on the Bethesda system.
resultsThe study revealed a moderate overall agreement between sonographers and radiologists in TI-RADS scoring (κ = 0.504; 95% CI: 0.409-0.599), with poor agreement noted specifically for nodule margin scores (κ = 0.102; 95% CI: -1.430-0.301). In terms of diagnostic performance against histological outcomes, sonographers' TI-RADS scores showed a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 44.6%, while radiologists' scores showed a sensitivity of 100% but a lower specificity of 29.3%.
conclusionThe findings indicate moderate agreement in TI-RADS scoring between sonographers and radiologists, with reproducibility challenges especially in scoring nodule margins. The marginally superior diagnostic performance of sonographers' scores suggests potential efficiency benefits in involving sonographers in preliminary assessments. Future research should aim to encompass a wider range of TI-RADS categories and focus on minimizing scoring variability to enhance the system's clinical utility.
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.