SynthesisJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI2026
Impact of Diffusion-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging Parameters on Diagnostic Accuracy for Thyroid Nodules: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Impact of Diffusion-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging Parameters on Diagnostic Accuracy for Thyroid Nodules: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSurgery is the gold standard to differentiate benign from malignant thyroid nodules, but it is invasive and often unnecessary in indeterminate cases. Diffusion-Weighted MRI (DW-MRI) has emerged as a promising, non-invasive tool, though its accuracy and the impact of acquisition parameters remain unclear. PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of DW-MRI in distinguishing malignant from benign thyroid nodules and identifying influencing acquisition parameters. STUDY TYPE: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (researchregistry11482). POPULATION: 2073 patients, 2403 thyroid nodules (1067 malignant). FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: DW-MRI at 3.0T or 1.5T. ASSESSMENT: A systematic search of Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted through July 2025 following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Diagnostic Test Accuracy guidelines. Studies on DW-MRI in thyroid nodules were included. Risk of bias and applicability were assessed using QUADAS-2. STATISTICAL TESTS: A bivariate random-effects model estimated pooled sensitivity (SE), specificity (SP), and area under the curve (AUC). Univariable and multivariable meta-regressions explored the influence of DW-MRI parameters. Subgroup analyses and pooled Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) comparisons were also performed. Results were considered statistically significant at p < 0.05.
resultsThirty-seven studies were included. DW-MRI showed pooled SE 0.84, SP 0.87, and AUC 0.91, confirmed in studies at low risk of bias (AUC 0.80). Univariable meta-regression revealed that 3.0T field strength reduced SP, while < 5 averages and acquisition matrix ≥ 130 increased SE. Nodule size ≥ 10 mm and circular region of interest improved SP. Multivariable analysis confirmed increased SE with b-values > 2 and improved SP with b ≥ 1000, while 3.0 T remained associated with reduced SP. Malignant nodules showed lower ADC (1.08 vs. 1.73 × 10 DATA
conclusionDW-MRI shows good diagnostic accuracy for thyroid nodule assessment, although it is influenced by both technical and methodological factors. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3: TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 3.
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.