ArticleEndocrine connections2025
Optimizing the screening process for TIRADS could reduce the number of unnecessary thyroid biopsies.
Article in Endocrine connections, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Current Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data Systems (TIRADS) exhibit considerable variability in size thresholds for fine-needle aspiration biopsy. This study harnesses the systematic variations among dissimilar TIRADS optimization strategies for biopsy selection. Methods: The analysis focused on the discrepancies observed among the four widely utilized TIRADS systems: ACR-TIRADS, Kwak-TIRADS, C-TIRADS and EU-TIRADS. Subsequently, several methods derived from the combination of two TIRADS were constructed via serial testing. Last but not least, diagnostic performance was assessed through unnecessary biopsy rate (UBR), missed malignancy rate and the frequency of clinically significant missed diagnoses. Results: A total of 699 nodules were included in the study. The accuracy for nodules consistently recommended for biopsy by the four TIRADS was merely 50.8%. Without elevating the risk of missed diagnoses, which could potentially influence prognosis as per the current literature, for eligible nodules recommended for biopsy by original TIRADS, incorporating another TIRADS in serial could further reduce the number of biopsies by 7.8-19.2%. Conclusions: Conspicuous disparities exist in biopsy guidelines among TIRADS systems, urging increased caution among healthcare providers, particularly when they are extensively applied in patient evaluations. As evidently demonstrated by our research findings, combining recommendations from two TIRADS systems could effectively and safely lessen UBRs. These findings also advocate for the integration of prognostic-impact assessment in developing novel biopsy optimization strategies.
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.