Head-to-head comparison of American, European, and Asian TIRADSs in thyroid nodule assessment: systematic review and meta-analysis
Authors' conclusion
ACR-, EU-, and K-TIRADS assess TNs similarly across their categories, with slight differences in low-risk classifications. Despite this, focusing on cancer risk estimation, the three TIRADSs assess TNs differently. These findings should be considered as a prerequisite for developing the I-TIRADS.
Study context
- Population
- Original studies that sequentially assessed thyroid nodules using TIRADSs, regardless of FNAC indication; PubMed and Embase searched until June 2023
- Participants
- 41,332 participants7 studies
- Comparison
- ACR- vs EU- vs K-TIRADS
- Outcome
- Distribution of thyroid nodules across TIRADS categories and by estimated cancer risk
Methodological detailshead-to-head comparison
- Head-to-head comparison
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
Distribution of TNs across TIRADS categories
- Prevalence of ACR-TIRADS 1-2 significantly higher than EU-TIRADS 2 and K-TIRADS 2
- No significant difference among intermediate- and high-risk categories of TIRADSs
- By malignancy risk estimation: K-TIRADS often classified thyroid nodules (TNs) as more severe risk, ACR-TIRADS as moderate risk, EU-TIRADS as lower risk
Original publication
Head-to-head comparison of American, European, and Asian TIRADSs in thyroid nodule assessment: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Thyroid J. Published 15 March 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →