ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2026
Comparative study of different worldwide versions of the thyroid risk stratification system in patients with thyroid nodules in China.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In China, the risk stratification system for thyroid nodules has not yet reached a uniform consensus. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of the Chinese Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data Systems (C-TIRADS), American College of Radiology TIRADS (ACR-TIRADS), European TIRADS (EU-TIRADS), and Korean TIRADS (K-TIRADS) in distinguishing benign from malignant thyroid nodules and guiding fine-needle aspiration (FNA). Methods: A total of 1,174 thyroid nodules from 1,174 patients with an average age of 45.86±13.66 years were included in our study. Ultrasound features of the nodules were evaluated and categorized according to the four thyroid risk stratification systems. These TIRADSs were compared by using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and the optimal cut-off classification was determined from the four systems and the diagnostic performance of the corresponding recommended FNAs was compared. Results: Out of the 1,174 thyroid nodules, 699 were benign, and 475 were malignant. The best diagnostic performance cut-off categories for each risk stratification system were C-TIRADS 4B [area under the curve (AUC) =0.864], ACR-TIRADS 5 (AUC =0.882), EU-TIRADS 5 (AUC =0.861) and K-TIRADS 5 (AUC =0.856). The AUROC of ACR-TIRADS 5 was significantly greater than those of C-TIRADS 4B, EU-TIRADS 5, and K-TIRADS 5 ( Conclusions: All four thyroid risk stratification systems with different geographical settings have high diagnostic performance. FNAs based on C-TIRADS recommendations have significantly better diagnostic performance and may be more suitable for use in patients with thyroid nodules in China.
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.