Affordable Access

deepdyve-link
Publisher Website

Accuracy of thyroid imaging reporting and data system category 4 or 5 for diagnosing malignancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors
  • Kim, Dong Hwan1
  • Chung, Sae Rom2
  • Choi, Sang Hyun3
  • Kim, Kyung Won2
  • 1 Department of Radiology, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 222 Banpo-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul, 06591, Republic of Korea. , (North Korea)
  • 2 Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88 Olympic-Ro 43-Gil, Songpa-Gu, Seoul, 05505, Republic of Korea. , (North Korea)
  • 3 Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 88 Olympic-Ro 43-Gil, Songpa-Gu, Seoul, 05505, Republic of Korea. [email protected] , (North Korea)
Type
Published Article
Journal
European Radiology
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Publication Date
Oct 01, 2020
Volume
30
Issue
10
Pages
5611–5624
Identifiers
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-020-06875-w
PMID: 32356157
Source
Medline
Keywords
Language
English
License
Unknown

Abstract

To determine the accuracies of the American College of Radiology (ACR)-thyroid imaging reporting and data systems (TIRADS), Korean (K)-TIRADS, and European (EU)-TIRADS for diagnosing malignancy in thyroid nodules. Original studies reporting the diagnostic accuracy of TIRADS for determining malignancy on ultrasound were identified in MEDLINE and EMBASE up to June 23, 2019. The meta-analytic summary sensitivity and specificity were obtained for TIRADS category 5 (TR-5) and category 4 or 5 (TR-4/5), using a bivariate random effects model. To explore study heterogeneity, meta-regression analyses were performed. Of the 34 eligible articles (37,585 nodules), 25 used ACR-TIRADS, 12 used K-TIRADS, and seven used EU-TIRADS. For TR-5, the meta-analytic sensitivity was highest for EU-TIRADS (78% [95% confidence interval, 64-88%]), followed by ACR-TIRADS (70% [61-79%]) and K-TIRADS (64% [58-70%]), although the differences were not significant. K-TIRADS showed the highest meta-analytic specificity (93% [91-95%]), which was similar to ACR-TIRADS (89% [85-92%]) and EU-TIRADS (89% [77-95%]). For TR-4/5, all three TIRADS systems had sensitivities higher than 90%. K-TIRADS had the highest specificity (61% [50-72%]), followed by ACR-TIRADS (49% [43-56%]) and EU-TIRADS (48% [35-62%]), although the differences were not significant. Considerable threshold effects were noted with ACR- and K-TIRADS (p ≤ 0.01), with subject enrollment, country of origin, experience level of reviewer, number of patients, and clarity of blinding in review being the main causes of heterogeneity (p ≤ 0.05). There was no significant difference among these three international TIRADS, but the trend toward higher sensitivity with EU-TIRADS and higher specificity with K-TIRADS. • For TIRADS category 5, the meta-analytic sensitivity was highest for the EU-TIRADS, followed by the ACR-TIRADS and the K-TIRADS, although the differences were not significant. • For TIRADS category 5, K-TIRADS showed the highest meta-analytic specificity, which was similar to ACR-TIRADS and EU-TIRADS. • Considerable threshold effects were noted with ACR- and K-TIRADS, with subject enrollment, country of origin, experience level of reviewer, number of patients, and clarity of blinding in review being the main causes of heterogeneity.

Report this publication

Statistics

Seen <100 times