Cargando…

Comparison of Diagnostic Performance of Five Different Ultrasound TI-RADS Classification Guidelines for Thyroid Nodules

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate and compare the diagnostic performance of five ultrasound thyroid imaging reporting and data system (TI-RADS) classification guidelines for thyroid nodules through a review and meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched for relevant studies before February 2020 in PubMed. T...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yang, Ruoning, Zou, Xiuhe, Zeng, Hao, Zhao, Yunuo, Ma, Xuelei
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7717965/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33330093
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2020.598225
_version_ 1783619411257589760
author Yang, Ruoning
Zou, Xiuhe
Zeng, Hao
Zhao, Yunuo
Ma, Xuelei
author_facet Yang, Ruoning
Zou, Xiuhe
Zeng, Hao
Zhao, Yunuo
Ma, Xuelei
author_sort Yang, Ruoning
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate and compare the diagnostic performance of five ultrasound thyroid imaging reporting and data system (TI-RADS) classification guidelines for thyroid nodules through a review and meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched for relevant studies before February 2020 in PubMed. Then we pooled the sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, diagnostic odds ratios, and area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curves. And the diagnostic odds ratios were used to compare the performance. RESULTS: We totally included 19 studies with 4,696 lesions in this research. The pooled sensitivity of American College of Radiology (ACR) guidelines, American Thyroid Association (ATA) guidelines, TI-RADS proposed by Kwak (Kwak TI-RADS), Korean Thyroid Association/Korean Society of Thyroid Radiology (KTA/KSThR) guidelines for malignancy risk and European Thyroid Association (ETA) guidelines is between 0.84 and 0.94. The pooled specificity is 0.68, 0.44, 0.62, 0.47, and 0.61, respectively. And the RDOR is 1.57 (ACR vs ATA), 1.37 (ACR vs ETA), 1.80 (ACR vs Kawk), 1.74 (ARC vs KTA). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that five classification guidelines are all effective methods for differential diagnosis of benign and malignant thyroid nodules and ACR guideline is a better choice.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7717965
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77179652020-12-15 Comparison of Diagnostic Performance of Five Different Ultrasound TI-RADS Classification Guidelines for Thyroid Nodules Yang, Ruoning Zou, Xiuhe Zeng, Hao Zhao, Yunuo Ma, Xuelei Front Oncol Oncology OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate and compare the diagnostic performance of five ultrasound thyroid imaging reporting and data system (TI-RADS) classification guidelines for thyroid nodules through a review and meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched for relevant studies before February 2020 in PubMed. Then we pooled the sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, diagnostic odds ratios, and area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curves. And the diagnostic odds ratios were used to compare the performance. RESULTS: We totally included 19 studies with 4,696 lesions in this research. The pooled sensitivity of American College of Radiology (ACR) guidelines, American Thyroid Association (ATA) guidelines, TI-RADS proposed by Kwak (Kwak TI-RADS), Korean Thyroid Association/Korean Society of Thyroid Radiology (KTA/KSThR) guidelines for malignancy risk and European Thyroid Association (ETA) guidelines is between 0.84 and 0.94. The pooled specificity is 0.68, 0.44, 0.62, 0.47, and 0.61, respectively. And the RDOR is 1.57 (ACR vs ATA), 1.37 (ACR vs ETA), 1.80 (ACR vs Kawk), 1.74 (ARC vs KTA). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that five classification guidelines are all effective methods for differential diagnosis of benign and malignant thyroid nodules and ACR guideline is a better choice. Frontiers Media S.A. 2020-11-16 /pmc/articles/PMC7717965/ /pubmed/33330093 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2020.598225 Text en Copyright © 2020 Yang, Zou, Zeng, Zhao and Ma http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Oncology
Yang, Ruoning
Zou, Xiuhe
Zeng, Hao
Zhao, Yunuo
Ma, Xuelei
Comparison of Diagnostic Performance of Five Different Ultrasound TI-RADS Classification Guidelines for Thyroid Nodules
title Comparison of Diagnostic Performance of Five Different Ultrasound TI-RADS Classification Guidelines for Thyroid Nodules
title_full Comparison of Diagnostic Performance of Five Different Ultrasound TI-RADS Classification Guidelines for Thyroid Nodules
title_fullStr Comparison of Diagnostic Performance of Five Different Ultrasound TI-RADS Classification Guidelines for Thyroid Nodules
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Diagnostic Performance of Five Different Ultrasound TI-RADS Classification Guidelines for Thyroid Nodules
title_short Comparison of Diagnostic Performance of Five Different Ultrasound TI-RADS Classification Guidelines for Thyroid Nodules
title_sort comparison of diagnostic performance of five different ultrasound ti-rads classification guidelines for thyroid nodules
topic Oncology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7717965/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33330093
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2020.598225
work_keys_str_mv AT yangruoning comparisonofdiagnosticperformanceoffivedifferentultrasoundtiradsclassificationguidelinesforthyroidnodules
AT zouxiuhe comparisonofdiagnosticperformanceoffivedifferentultrasoundtiradsclassificationguidelinesforthyroidnodules
AT zenghao comparisonofdiagnosticperformanceoffivedifferentultrasoundtiradsclassificationguidelinesforthyroidnodules
AT zhaoyunuo comparisonofdiagnosticperformanceoffivedifferentultrasoundtiradsclassificationguidelinesforthyroidnodules
AT maxuelei comparisonofdiagnosticperformanceoffivedifferentultrasoundtiradsclassificationguidelinesforthyroidnodules