Suppr超能文献

五种不同甲状腺影像报告和数据系统(TI-RADS)分类指南对甲状腺结节诊断性能的比较

Comparison of Diagnostic Performance of Five Different Ultrasound TI-RADS Classification Guidelines for Thyroid Nodules.

作者信息

Yang Ruoning, Zou Xiuhe, Zeng Hao, Zhao Yunuo, Ma Xuelei

机构信息

Department of Biotherapy, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy, West China Hospital, Cancer Center, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.

West China Hospital, West China School of Medicine, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.

出版信息

Front Oncol. 2020 Nov 16;10:598225. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2020.598225. eCollection 2020.

Abstract

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 ATA), 1.37 (ACR ETA), 1.80 (ACR Kawk), 1.74 (ARC 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.

摘要

目的

我们旨在通过综述和荟萃分析来评估和比较五种甲状腺影像报告和数据系统(TI-RADS)分类指南对甲状腺结节的诊断性能。

方法

我们在2020年2月之前在PubMed上搜索相关研究。然后汇总敏感性、特异性、似然比、诊断比值比以及汇总接受者操作特征曲线下的面积。并使用诊断比值比来比较性能。

结果

本研究共纳入19项研究,涉及4696个病变。美国放射学会(ACR)指南、美国甲状腺协会(ATA)指南、Kwak提出的TI-RADS(Kwak TI-RADS)、韩国甲状腺协会/韩国甲状腺放射学会(KTA/KSThR)的恶性风险指南以及欧洲甲状腺协会(ETA)指南的汇总敏感性在0.84至0.94之间。汇总特异性分别为0.68、0.44、0.62、0.47和0.61。诊断比值比为1.57(ACR对ATA)、1.37(ACR对ETA)、1.80(ACR对Kawk)、1.74(ARC对KTA)。

结论

结果表明,五种分类指南都是鉴别甲状腺结节良恶性的有效方法,ACR指南是更好的选择。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/ff94/7717965/6c65587732dc/fonc-10-598225-g002.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验