Literature DB >> 20544863

Observer variability in the sonographic evaluation of thyroid nodules.

Chang Suk Park1, Sung Hun Kim, So Lyung Jung, Bong Joo Kang, Jee Young Kim, Jae Jung Choi, Mi Suk Sung, Hyeon Woo Yim, Seung Hee Jeong.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Inter- and intraobserver variabilities in the description and diagnostic categorization of sonographic (US) features of thyroid nodules were evaluated.
METHODS: The current study was conducted on 72 malignant nodules and 61 benign nodules. The US findings for each thyroid nodule were analyzed twice at a 6-week interval by five radiologists. The analyses were in accordance with the guidelines proposed by the Thyroid Study Group of the Korean Society of Neuroradiology and Head and Neck Radiology (TSGKSNRHNR). Inter- and intraobserver variabilities were calculated using Cohen's kappa statistics. The sensitivity, specificity, positive-predictive value, and negative-predictive value in the assessment of the diagnostic accuracy using these guidelines were calculated. RESULT: The interobserver agreement was fair to substantial for US features and categorization. Of the US features of the thyroid nodules, internal content (solid versus cystic) showed substantial agreement (k = 0.64). There was moderate agreement with regard to shape, echogenicity, calcification, and diagnostic categories (k = 0.42, 0.57, 0.55, and 0.55, respectively). There was fair agreement for margin, echotexture, and capsule invasion (k = 0.34, 0.26, and 0.32, respectively). With regard to intraobserver agreement, there was moderate to substantial agreement for all US features except for echotexture and capsule invasion, which showed fair agreement. In particular, there was moderate to almost perfect agreement for the diagnostic category. The sensitivity, specificity, positive-predictive value, and negative-predictive value were 65.3%-81.9%, 60.7%-68.9%, 69.7%-73.8%, and 66.6%-75.5%, respectively.
CONCLUSION: There were high degrees of inter- and intraobserver agreement using the "Guidelines for diagnostic thyroid ultrasonography," of the TSGKSNRHNR in the description and categorization of thyroid nodules.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20544863     DOI: 10.1002/jcu.20689

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Ultrasound        ISSN: 0091-2751            Impact factor:   0.910


  45 in total

1.  Implications of US radiomics signature for predicting malignancy in thyroid nodules with indeterminate cytology.

Authors:  Jiyoung Yoon; Eunjung Lee; Sang-Wook Kang; Kyunghwa Han; Vivian Youngjean Park; Jin Young Kwak
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2021-01-18       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  EUS-derived criteria for distinguishing benign from malignant metastatic solid hepatic masses.

Authors:  Larissa L Fujii-Lau; Barham K Abu Dayyeh; Marco J Bruno; Kenneth J Chang; John M DeWitt; Paul Fockens; David Forcione; Bertrand Napoleon; Laurent Palazzo; Mark D Topazian; Maurits J Wiersema; Amitabh Chak; Jonathan E Clain; Douglas O Faigel; Ferga C Gleeson; Robert Hawes; Prasad G Iyer; Elizabeth Rajan; Tyler Stevens; Michael B Wallace; Kenneth K Wang; Michael J Levy
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2015-02-07       Impact factor: 9.427

3.  Ultrasonography scoring systems can rule out malignancy in cytologically indeterminate thyroid nodules.

Authors:  Giorgio Grani; Livia Lamartina; Valeria Ascoli; Daniela Bosco; Francesco Nardi; Ferdinando D'Ambrosio; Antonello Rubini; Laura Giacomelli; Marco Biffoni; Sebastiano Filetti; Cosimo Durante; Vito Cantisani
Journal:  Endocrine       Date:  2016-10-31       Impact factor: 3.633

4.  Applications of machine learning and deep learning to thyroid imaging: where do we stand?

Authors:  Eun Ju Ha; Jung Hwan Baek
Journal:  Ultrasonography       Date:  2020-07-03

5.  Thyroid imaging reporting and data system (TI-RADS) in the diagnostic value of thyroid nodules: a systematic review.

Authors:  Xi Wei; Ying Li; Sheng Zhang; Ming Gao
Journal:  Tumour Biol       Date:  2014-04-11

6.  Computer-aided diagnostic system for thyroid nodule sonographic evaluation outperforms the specificity of less experienced examiners.

Authors:  Daniele Fresilli; Giorgio Grani; Maria Luna De Pascali; Gregorio Alagna; Eleonora Tassone; Valeria Ramundo; Valeria Ascoli; Daniela Bosco; Marco Biffoni; Marco Bononi; Vito D'Andrea; Fabrizio Frattaroli; Laura Giacomelli; Yana Solskaya; Giorgia Polti; Patrizia Pacini; Olga Guiban; Raffaele Gallo Curcio; Marcello Caratozzolo; Vito Cantisani
Journal:  J Ultrasound       Date:  2020-04-03

7.  Interobserver agreement and efficacy of consensus reading in Kwak-, EU-, and ACR-thyroid imaging recording and data systems and ATA guidelines for the ultrasound risk stratification of thyroid nodules.

Authors:  Philipp Seifert; Rainer Görges; Michael Zimny; Michael C Kreissl; Simone Schenke
Journal:  Endocrine       Date:  2019-11-18       Impact factor: 3.633

8.  TIRADS Interobserver Variability Among Indeterminate Thyroid Nodules: A Single-Institution Study.

Authors:  Zeyad T Sahli; Ashwyn K Sharma; Joseph K Canner; Farah Karipineni; Osama Ali; Satomi Kawamoto; Jen-Fan Hang; Aarti Mathur; Syed Z Ali; Martha A Zeiger; Sheila Sheth
Journal:  J Ultrasound Med       Date:  2018-11-22       Impact factor: 2.153

9.  Tumor size measured by preoperative ultrasonography and postoperative pathologic examination in papillary thyroid carcinoma: relative differences according to size, calcification and coexisting thyroiditis.

Authors:  Young Hoon Yoon; Ki Ryun Kwon; Seo Young Kwak; Kyeung A Ryu; Bobae Choi; Jin-Man Kim; Bon Seok Koo
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2013-07-24       Impact factor: 2.503

Review 10.  New American Thyroid Association Sonographic Patterns for Thyroid Nodules Perform Well in Medullary Thyroid Carcinoma: Institutional Experience, Systematic Review, and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Pablo Valderrabano; Donald L Klippenstein; John B Tourtelot; Zhenjun Ma; Zachary J Thompson; Howard S Lilienfeld; Bryan McIver
Journal:  Thyroid       Date:  2016-07-08       Impact factor: 6.568

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.