INTRODUCTION: U-score ultrasound classification (graded U1-U5) is widely used to grade thyroid nodules based on benign and malignant sonographic features. It is well established that ultrasound is an operator-dependent imaging modality and thus more susceptible to subjective variances between operators when using imaging-based scoring systems. We aimed to assess whether there is any intra- or interobserver variability when U-scoring thyroid nodules and whether previous thyroid ultrasound experience has an effect on this variability. METHODS: A total of 14 ultrasound operators were identified (five experienced thyroid operators, five with intermediate experience and four with no experience) and were asked to U-score images from 20 thyroid cases shown as a single projection, with and without Doppler flow. The cases were subsequently rescored by the 14 operators after six weeks. The first and second round U-scores for the three operator groups were then analysed using Fleiss' kappa to assess interobserver variability and Cochran's Q test to determine any intraobserver variability. RESULTS: We found no significant interobserver variability on combined assessment of all operators with fair agreement in round 1 (Fleiss' kappa = 0.30, p <0.0001) and slight agreement in round 2 (Fleiss' kappa = 0.19, p < 0.0001). Cochran's Q test revealed no significant intraobserver variability in all 14 operators between round 1 and round 2 (all p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: We found no statistically significant inter- or intraobserver variability in the U-scoring of thyroid nodules between all participants reinforcing the validity of this scoring method in clinical practice, allaying concerns regarding potential subjective biases in reporting.
INTRODUCTION: U-score ultrasound classification (graded U1-U5) is widely used to grade thyroid nodules based on benign and malignant sonographic features. It is well established that ultrasound is an operator-dependent imaging modality and thus more susceptible to subjective variances between operators when using imaging-based scoring systems. We aimed to assess whether there is any intra- or interobserver variability when U-scoring thyroid nodules and whether previous thyroid ultrasound experience has an effect on this variability. METHODS: A total of 14 ultrasound operators were identified (five experienced thyroid operators, five with intermediate experience and four with no experience) and were asked to U-score images from 20 thyroid cases shown as a single projection, with and without Doppler flow. The cases were subsequently rescored by the 14 operators after six weeks. The first and second round U-scores for the three operator groups were then analysed using Fleiss' kappa to assess interobserver variability and Cochran's Q test to determine any intraobserver variability. RESULTS: We found no significant interobserver variability on combined assessment of all operators with fair agreement in round 1 (Fleiss' kappa = 0.30, p <0.0001) and slight agreement in round 2 (Fleiss' kappa = 0.19, p < 0.0001). Cochran's Q test revealed no significant intraobserver variability in all 14 operators between round 1 and round 2 (all p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: We found no statistically significant inter- or intraobserver variability in the U-scoring of thyroid nodules between all participants reinforcing the validity of this scoring method in clinical practice, allaying concerns regarding potential subjective biases in reporting.
Authors: Mary C Frates; Carol B Benson; J William Charboneau; Edmund S Cibas; Orlo H Clark; Beverly G Coleman; John J Cronan; Peter M Doubilet; Douglas B Evans; John R Goellner; Ian D Hay; Barbara S Hertzberg; Charles M Intenzo; R Brooke Jeffrey; Jill E Langer; P Reed Larsen; Susan J Mandel; William D Middleton; Carl C Reading; Steven I Sherman; Franklin N Tessler Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Niamh M Hambly; Mithat Gonen; Scott R Gerst; Duan Li; Xiaoyu Jia; Svetlana Mironov; Debra Sarasohn; Stephen E Fleming; Lucy E Hann Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Su Min Ha; Hye Shin Ahn; Jung Hwan Baek; Hwa Young Ahn; Yun Jae Chung; Bo Youn Cho; Sung Bin Park Journal: Thyroid Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 6.568
Authors: Hossein Gharib; Enrico Papini; Roberto Valcavi; H Jack Baskin; Anna Crescenzi; Massimo E Dottorini; Daniel S Duick; Rinaldo Guglielmi; Carlos Robert Hamilton; Martha A Zeiger; Michele Zini Journal: Endocr Pract Date: 2006 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 3.443
Authors: Cesar A Lam; Melissa J McGettigan; Zachary J Thompson; Laila Khazai; Christine H Chung; Barbara A Centeno; Bryan McIver; Pablo Valderrabano Journal: Endocrine Date: 2019-07-12 Impact factor: 3.633
Authors: Petros Perros; Kristien Boelaert; Steve Colley; Carol Evans; Rhordi M Evans; Georgina Gerrard Ba; Jackie Gilbert; Barney Harrison; Sarah J Johnson; Thomas E Giles; Laura Moss; Val Lewington; Kate Newbold; Judith Taylor; Rajesh V Thakker; John Watkinson; Graham R Williams Journal: Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 3.478