Accuracy of thyroid imaging reporting and data system category 4 or 5 for diagnosing malignancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

<bold>Objectives: </bold>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.<bold>Methods: </bold>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.<bold>Results: </bold>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).<bold>Conclusions: </bold>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.<bold>Key Points: </bold>• 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]