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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |