Evaluating diagnostic accuracy and agreement of TI-RADS scoring in thyroid nodules: A comparative analysis between sonographers and radiologists
The Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data System (TI-RADS) is an essential tool for assessing thyroid nodules, primarily used by radiologists. This study aimed to compare the agreement of TI-RADS scores between sonographers and radiologists and to assess the diagnostic performance of these scores again...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2024-10, Vol.19 (10), p.e0312121 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 10 |
| container_start_page | e0312121 |
| container_title | PloS one |
| container_volume | 19 |
| creator | Alfuraih, Abdulrahman M Alotaibi, Abdullah M Alshammari, Alanoud K Alrashied, Basmah F Mashhor, Yahya M Mahmoud, Mustafa Alsaadi, Mohammed J |
| description | The Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data System (TI-RADS) is an essential tool for assessing thyroid nodules, primarily used by radiologists. This study aimed to compare the agreement of TI-RADS scores between sonographers and radiologists and to assess the diagnostic performance of these scores against histological findings in suspicious thyroid nodules.
In a retrospective analysis, 168 patients with suspicious thyroid nodules classified as TR3 and above by the radiologists were included. Both sonographers and radiologists independently assigned the American College of Radiologists (ACR) TI-RADS scores, which were then compared for inter-reader agreement using Cohen's Kappa statistic. The scores were also evaluated for diagnostic performance against histological results based on the Bethesda system.
The study revealed a moderate overall agreement between sonographers and radiologists in TI-RADS scoring (κ = 0.504; 95% CI: 0.409-0.599), with poor agreement noted specifically for nodule margin scores (κ = 0.102; 95% CI: -1.430-0.301). In terms of diagnostic performance against histological outcomes, sonographers' TI-RADS scores showed a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 44.6%, while radiologists' scores showed a sensitivity of 100% but a lower specificity of 29.3%.
The findings indicate moderate agreement in TI-RADS scoring between sonographers and radiologists, with reproducibility challenges especially in scoring nodule margins. The marginally superior diagnostic performance of sonographers' scores suggests potential efficiency benefits in involving sonographers in preliminary assessments. Future research should aim to encompass a wider range of TI-RADS categories and focus on minimizing scoring variability to enhance the system's clinical utility. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0312121 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_3115738162</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A811917389</galeid><sourcerecordid>A811917389</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c450t-a7bd0bb52add88645a9db25b6d899701b59059efbba02f71c278fba1d7a15fac3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkl1rFDEYhQdRbK3-A9GAIHqxazLZzId3S626UCi01dvw5mNmUzLJNslU91_4k83aqXSlF_JeJITnnBdOTlG8JHhOaE0-XPkxOLDzjXd6jikp8zwqDklLy1lVYvr43v2geBbjFcaMNlX1tDigLW3LhrHD4tfJDdgRknE9UgZ652MyEoGUYwC5ReAUgj5oPWiXkO_Q5Wp2vvx0gaL0YScyDqX1NnijkPNqtDp-REsk_bCBkG1vdLYAu40mIqHTD60dit75PsBmrUP8syCAMt763sQUnxdPOrBRv5jOo-Lb55PL46-z07Mvq-Pl6UwuGE4zqIXCQrASlGqaasGgVaJkolJN29aYCNZi1upOCMBlVxNZ1k0ngKgaCOtA0qPi9a3vxvrIpzAjp4SwmjakKjPxbiKCvx51THwwUWprwWk_TmiNcd1m9M0_6MOGE9WD1dy4zqec8c6ULxtCWpK5ndf8ASqP0oOR-bM7k9_3BO_3BJlJ-mfqYYyRry7O_589-77Pvr3HrjXYtI7ejsl4F_fBxS0og48x6I5vghkgbDnBfNfVuzT4rqt86mqWvZpCG8Wg1V_RXTnpbw0Q5fg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3115738162</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Evaluating diagnostic accuracy and agreement of TI-RADS scoring in thyroid nodules: A comparative analysis between sonographers and radiologists</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</source><creator>Alfuraih, Abdulrahman M ; Alotaibi, Abdullah M ; Alshammari, Alanoud K ; Alrashied, Basmah F ; Mashhor, Yahya M ; Mahmoud, Mustafa ; Alsaadi, Mohammed J</creator><contributor>Khorasani, Milad</contributor><creatorcontrib>Alfuraih, Abdulrahman M ; Alotaibi, Abdullah M ; Alshammari, Alanoud K ; Alrashied, Basmah F ; Mashhor, Yahya M ; Mahmoud, Mustafa ; Alsaadi, Mohammed J ; Khorasani, Milad</creatorcontrib><description>The Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data System (TI-RADS) is an essential tool for assessing thyroid nodules, primarily used by radiologists. This study aimed to compare the agreement of TI-RADS scores between sonographers and radiologists and to assess the diagnostic performance of these scores against histological findings in suspicious thyroid nodules.
In a retrospective analysis, 168 patients with suspicious thyroid nodules classified as TR3 and above by the radiologists were included. Both sonographers and radiologists independently assigned the American College of Radiologists (ACR) TI-RADS scores, which were then compared for inter-reader agreement using Cohen's Kappa statistic. The scores were also evaluated for diagnostic performance against histological results based on the Bethesda system.
The study revealed a moderate overall agreement between sonographers and radiologists in TI-RADS scoring (κ = 0.504; 95% CI: 0.409-0.599), with poor agreement noted specifically for nodule margin scores (κ = 0.102; 95% CI: -1.430-0.301). In terms of diagnostic performance against histological outcomes, sonographers' TI-RADS scores showed a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 44.6%, while radiologists' scores showed a sensitivity of 100% but a lower specificity of 29.3%.
The findings indicate moderate agreement in TI-RADS scoring between sonographers and radiologists, with reproducibility challenges especially in scoring nodule margins. The marginally superior diagnostic performance of sonographers' scores suggests potential efficiency benefits in involving sonographers in preliminary assessments. Future research should aim to encompass a wider range of TI-RADS categories and focus on minimizing scoring variability to enhance the system's clinical utility.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0312121</identifier><identifier>PMID: 39392855</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Accuracy ; Accuracy and precision ; Adult ; Aged ; Analysis ; Biopsy, Needle ; Care and treatment ; Comparative analysis ; Data systems ; Demographic aspects ; Diagnosis ; Diagnostic tests ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Medical diagnosis ; Medical screening ; Methods ; Middle Aged ; Nodules ; Observer Variation ; Patients ; Performance evaluation ; Prevalence studies (Epidemiology) ; Radiologists ; Retrospective Studies ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Thyroid ; Thyroid diseases ; Thyroid gland ; Thyroid Gland - diagnostic imaging ; Thyroid Gland - pathology ; Thyroid Nodule - diagnosis ; Thyroid Nodule - diagnostic imaging ; Thyroid Nodule - pathology ; Tumors ; Ultrasonic imaging ; Ultrasonography - methods</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2024-10, Vol.19 (10), p.e0312121</ispartof><rights>Copyright: © 2024 Alfuraih et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2024 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2024 Alfuraih et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2024 Alfuraih et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c450t-a7bd0bb52add88645a9db25b6d899701b59059efbba02f71c278fba1d7a15fac3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-4655-7248</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0312121&type=printable$$EPDF$$P50$$Gplos$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0312121$$EHTML$$P50$$Gplos$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,860,2915,23845,27901,27902,79343,79344</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39392855$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Khorasani, Milad</contributor><creatorcontrib>Alfuraih, Abdulrahman M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alotaibi, Abdullah M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alshammari, Alanoud K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alrashied, Basmah F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mashhor, Yahya M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mahmoud, Mustafa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alsaadi, Mohammed J</creatorcontrib><title>Evaluating diagnostic accuracy and agreement of TI-RADS scoring in thyroid nodules: A comparative analysis between sonographers and radiologists</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>The Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data System (TI-RADS) is an essential tool for assessing thyroid nodules, primarily used by radiologists. This study aimed to compare the agreement of TI-RADS scores between sonographers and radiologists and to assess the diagnostic performance of these scores against histological findings in suspicious thyroid nodules.
In a retrospective analysis, 168 patients with suspicious thyroid nodules classified as TR3 and above by the radiologists were included. Both sonographers and radiologists independently assigned the American College of Radiologists (ACR) TI-RADS scores, which were then compared for inter-reader agreement using Cohen's Kappa statistic. The scores were also evaluated for diagnostic performance against histological results based on the Bethesda system.
The study revealed a moderate overall agreement between sonographers and radiologists in TI-RADS scoring (κ = 0.504; 95% CI: 0.409-0.599), with poor agreement noted specifically for nodule margin scores (κ = 0.102; 95% CI: -1.430-0.301). In terms of diagnostic performance against histological outcomes, sonographers' TI-RADS scores showed a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 44.6%, while radiologists' scores showed a sensitivity of 100% but a lower specificity of 29.3%.
The findings indicate moderate agreement in TI-RADS scoring between sonographers and radiologists, with reproducibility challenges especially in scoring nodule margins. The marginally superior diagnostic performance of sonographers' scores suggests potential efficiency benefits in involving sonographers in preliminary assessments. Future research should aim to encompass a wider range of TI-RADS categories and focus on minimizing scoring variability to enhance the system's clinical utility.</description><subject>Accuracy</subject><subject>Accuracy and precision</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Biopsy, Needle</subject><subject>Care and treatment</subject><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>Data systems</subject><subject>Demographic aspects</subject><subject>Diagnosis</subject><subject>Diagnostic tests</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical diagnosis</subject><subject>Medical screening</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Nodules</subject><subject>Observer Variation</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Performance evaluation</subject><subject>Prevalence studies (Epidemiology)</subject><subject>Radiologists</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Thyroid</subject><subject>Thyroid diseases</subject><subject>Thyroid gland</subject><subject>Thyroid Gland - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Thyroid Gland - pathology</subject><subject>Thyroid Nodule - diagnosis</subject><subject>Thyroid Nodule - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Thyroid Nodule - pathology</subject><subject>Tumors</subject><subject>Ultrasonic imaging</subject><subject>Ultrasonography - methods</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkl1rFDEYhQdRbK3-A9GAIHqxazLZzId3S626UCi01dvw5mNmUzLJNslU91_4k83aqXSlF_JeJITnnBdOTlG8JHhOaE0-XPkxOLDzjXd6jikp8zwqDklLy1lVYvr43v2geBbjFcaMNlX1tDigLW3LhrHD4tfJDdgRknE9UgZ652MyEoGUYwC5ReAUgj5oPWiXkO_Q5Wp2vvx0gaL0YScyDqX1NnijkPNqtDp-REsk_bCBkG1vdLYAu40mIqHTD60dit75PsBmrUP8syCAMt763sQUnxdPOrBRv5jOo-Lb55PL46-z07Mvq-Pl6UwuGE4zqIXCQrASlGqaasGgVaJkolJN29aYCNZi1upOCMBlVxNZ1k0ngKgaCOtA0qPi9a3vxvrIpzAjp4SwmjakKjPxbiKCvx51THwwUWprwWk_TmiNcd1m9M0_6MOGE9WD1dy4zqec8c6ULxtCWpK5ndf8ASqP0oOR-bM7k9_3BO_3BJlJ-mfqYYyRry7O_589-77Pvr3HrjXYtI7ejsl4F_fBxS0og48x6I5vghkgbDnBfNfVuzT4rqt86mqWvZpCG8Wg1V_RXTnpbw0Q5fg</recordid><startdate>20241011</startdate><enddate>20241011</enddate><creator>Alfuraih, Abdulrahman M</creator><creator>Alotaibi, Abdullah M</creator><creator>Alshammari, Alanoud K</creator><creator>Alrashied, Basmah F</creator><creator>Mashhor, Yahya M</creator><creator>Mahmoud, Mustafa</creator><creator>Alsaadi, Mohammed J</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4655-7248</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20241011</creationdate><title>Evaluating diagnostic accuracy and agreement of TI-RADS scoring in thyroid nodules: A comparative analysis between sonographers and radiologists</title><author>Alfuraih, Abdulrahman M ; Alotaibi, Abdullah M ; Alshammari, Alanoud K ; Alrashied, Basmah F ; Mashhor, Yahya M ; Mahmoud, Mustafa ; Alsaadi, Mohammed J</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c450t-a7bd0bb52add88645a9db25b6d899701b59059efbba02f71c278fba1d7a15fac3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Accuracy</topic><topic>Accuracy and precision</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Biopsy, Needle</topic><topic>Care and treatment</topic><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>Data systems</topic><topic>Demographic aspects</topic><topic>Diagnosis</topic><topic>Diagnostic tests</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical diagnosis</topic><topic>Medical screening</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Nodules</topic><topic>Observer Variation</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Performance evaluation</topic><topic>Prevalence studies (Epidemiology)</topic><topic>Radiologists</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Thyroid</topic><topic>Thyroid diseases</topic><topic>Thyroid gland</topic><topic>Thyroid Gland - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Thyroid Gland - pathology</topic><topic>Thyroid Nodule - diagnosis</topic><topic>Thyroid Nodule - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Thyroid Nodule - pathology</topic><topic>Tumors</topic><topic>Ultrasonic imaging</topic><topic>Ultrasonography - methods</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Alfuraih, Abdulrahman M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alotaibi, Abdullah M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alshammari, Alanoud K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alrashied, Basmah F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mashhor, Yahya M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mahmoud, Mustafa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alsaadi, Mohammed J</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Alfuraih, Abdulrahman M</au><au>Alotaibi, Abdullah M</au><au>Alshammari, Alanoud K</au><au>Alrashied, Basmah F</au><au>Mashhor, Yahya M</au><au>Mahmoud, Mustafa</au><au>Alsaadi, Mohammed J</au><au>Khorasani, Milad</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Evaluating diagnostic accuracy and agreement of TI-RADS scoring in thyroid nodules: A comparative analysis between sonographers and radiologists</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2024-10-11</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>19</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>e0312121</spage><pages>e0312121-</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>The Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data System (TI-RADS) is an essential tool for assessing thyroid nodules, primarily used by radiologists. This study aimed to compare the agreement of TI-RADS scores between sonographers and radiologists and to assess the diagnostic performance of these scores against histological findings in suspicious thyroid nodules.
In a retrospective analysis, 168 patients with suspicious thyroid nodules classified as TR3 and above by the radiologists were included. Both sonographers and radiologists independently assigned the American College of Radiologists (ACR) TI-RADS scores, which were then compared for inter-reader agreement using Cohen's Kappa statistic. The scores were also evaluated for diagnostic performance against histological results based on the Bethesda system.
The study revealed a moderate overall agreement between sonographers and radiologists in TI-RADS scoring (κ = 0.504; 95% CI: 0.409-0.599), with poor agreement noted specifically for nodule margin scores (κ = 0.102; 95% CI: -1.430-0.301). In terms of diagnostic performance against histological outcomes, sonographers' TI-RADS scores showed a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 44.6%, while radiologists' scores showed a sensitivity of 100% but a lower specificity of 29.3%.
The findings indicate moderate agreement in TI-RADS scoring between sonographers and radiologists, with reproducibility challenges especially in scoring nodule margins. The marginally superior diagnostic performance of sonographers' scores suggests potential efficiency benefits in involving sonographers in preliminary assessments. Future research should aim to encompass a wider range of TI-RADS categories and focus on minimizing scoring variability to enhance the system's clinical utility.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>39392855</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0312121</doi><tpages>e0312121</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4655-7248</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
| ispartof | PloS one, 2024-10, Vol.19 (10), p.e0312121 |
| issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_plos_journals_3115738162 |
| source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry; Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
| subjects | Accuracy Accuracy and precision Adult Aged Analysis Biopsy, Needle Care and treatment Comparative analysis Data systems Demographic aspects Diagnosis Diagnostic tests Female Humans Male Medical diagnosis Medical screening Methods Middle Aged Nodules Observer Variation Patients Performance evaluation Prevalence studies (Epidemiology) Radiologists Retrospective Studies Sensitivity and Specificity Thyroid Thyroid diseases Thyroid gland Thyroid Gland - diagnostic imaging Thyroid Gland - pathology Thyroid Nodule - diagnosis Thyroid Nodule - diagnostic imaging Thyroid Nodule - pathology Tumors Ultrasonic imaging Ultrasonography - methods |
| title | Evaluating diagnostic accuracy and agreement of TI-RADS scoring in thyroid nodules: A comparative analysis between sonographers and radiologists |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-31T13%3A51%3A58IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Evaluating%20diagnostic%20accuracy%20and%20agreement%20of%20TI-RADS%20scoring%20in%20thyroid%20nodules:%20A%20comparative%20analysis%20between%20sonographers%20and%20radiologists&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Alfuraih,%20Abdulrahman%20M&rft.date=2024-10-11&rft.volume=19&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=e0312121&rft.pages=e0312121-&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0312121&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA811917389%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3115738162&rft_id=info:pmid/39392855&rft_galeid=A811917389&rfr_iscdi=true |