Conventional ultrasonography and elastosonography in diagnosis of malignant thyroid nodules: A systematic review and meta-analysis

• Published in: Frontiers in endocrinology (Lausanne) Vol. 13; p. 1082881
• Main Authors: Zhang, Dian, Wang, Xiao-Na, Jiang, Li, Yu, Chun-Xia, Chen, Yue-Nan, Yu, Xue-Juan, Pan, Mei-Fang
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Switzerland Frontiers Media S.A 06.01.2023
• Subjects: conventional ultrasonography (US); Diagnosis, Differential; elastosonography; Endocrinology; Humans; malignant; meta-analysis; ROC Curve; Sensitivity and Specificity; Thyroid Nodule - pathology; thyroid nodules; Ultrasonography; meta-analysis; conventional ultrasonography (US); thyroid nodules; elastosonography; malignant
• ISSN: 1664-2392; 1664-2392
• DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2022.1082881

To evaluate the diagnostic value of conventional ultrasound and elastosonography in malignant thyroid nodules by meta-analysis. The literature included in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase were searched by using "elastosonography, ultrasonography, thyroid nodules" as the keywords. The clinical studies using elastosonography and conventional ultrasound to diagnose thyroid nodules were selected, and histopathology of thyroid nodules was used as reference standards. The quality evaluation and heterogeneity test were performed on the literature that met the requirements, the combined specificity and sensitivity were pooled, and a comprehensive ROC curve analysis was performed. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) tool was utilized to evaluate the quality of each included study. Meta-DiSc version 1.4, StataSE 12 and Review Manager 5.4 were used. A total of nine studies assessed 3066 thyroid nodules (2043 benign and 1023 malignant). The pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and DOR of conventional ultrasound for the diagnose of malignant thyroid nodules were 0.833 (95% CI 0.809-0.855), 0.818 (95% CI 0.801-0.835), 4.85 (95% CI 4.36-5.39), 0.20 (95% CI 0.17-0.23), and 29.38 (95% CI 23.28-37.08), respectively, with an AUC of 0.9068. Also, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and DOR of elastosonography were 0.774 (95% CI 0.741-0.804), 0.737 (95% CI 0.715-0.758), 3.14(95% CI 2.85-3.47), 0.29 (95% CI 0.25-0.34), and 9.35 (95% CI 7.63-11.46), respectively, with an AUC of 0.8801. Three studies provided data regarding the conventional ultrasound and elastosonography. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, DOR, and AUC were 0.902 (95% CI 0.870-0.928), 0.649 (95% CI 0.616-0.681), 2.72 (95% CI 2.46-3.00), 0.14 (95% CI 0.11-0.19), 25.51 (95%CI 17.11-38.03), and 0.9294. The existing evidence shows that elastosonography cannot completely replace conventional ultrasound in the diagnosis of malignant thyroid nodules, and the combination of elastosonography and conventional ultrasound gives a better diagnostic precision. www.crd.york.ac.uk, identifier PROSPERO CRD42022375808.