Dong Hwan Kim1, Sae Rom Chung2, Sang Hyun Choi3, Kyung Won Kim2. 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. 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. 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. edwardchoi83@gmail.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSIONS: 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. KEY POINTS: • 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.
OBJECTIVES: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSIONS: 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. KEY POINTS: • 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.
Authors: Katarzyna Dobruch-Sobczak; Zbigniew Adamczewski; Marek Dedecjus; Andrzej Lewiński; Bartosz Migda; Marek Ruchała; Anna Skowrońska-Szcześniak; Ewelina Szczepanek-Parulska; Klaudia Zajkowska; Agnieszka Żyłka Journal: J Ultrason Date: 2022-04-27