2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2017.09.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Is Diagnostic Performance of Quantitative 2D-Shear Wave Elastography Optimal for Clinical Classification of Benign and Malignant Thyroid Nodules?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

3
26
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(29 citation statements)
references
References 37 publications
3
26
0
Order By: Relevance
“…S-Emean (≥ 23.75 kPa) was chosen as the diagnostic value of 2D SWE. AUC, sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were 0.752, 0.695, 0.763 and 0.722, similar to the results of past researches 14. 3D-T-mean (≥ 20.75 kPa) was the diagnostic value of 3D SWE.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…S-Emean (≥ 23.75 kPa) was chosen as the diagnostic value of 2D SWE. AUC, sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were 0.752, 0.695, 0.763 and 0.722, similar to the results of past researches 14. 3D-T-mean (≥ 20.75 kPa) was the diagnostic value of 3D SWE.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
“…In conclusion, the combination of B-mode ultrasound with 2D/3D SWE improved diagnostic value significantly, and B-mode + 2D SWE could be the optimal combination method in differential diagnosis. Some earlier reports had the similar conclusion 14-15, but Wang F et al found that adding SWE to conventional US did not improve diagnostic performance 12.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 84%
“…(32) found no difference in EI between 110 benign and 21 malignant nodules with indeterminate cytology. Moreover, a recent meta-analysis – including 2851 nodules from 14 studies – found suboptimal diagnostic accuracy of thyroid SWE, with a significant heterogeneity between studies and a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 0.66 and 0.78, respectively (33). These results contrast those from previous meta-analyses (34, 35, 36) which, however, included a smaller number of nodules and used sensitivity and specificity estimates applying to different cut-off points (33, 34, 35, 36).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Studies included nodules from 2 -71 mm and most were papillary carcinomas. Therefore, cut-off values have a wide range and a single threshold cannot be established [82,83,85]. The sensitivity for SWE has been reported as 63.8 -93.8 %, and the specificity as 50 -88.2 % [96, 97, 100, 102, 104 -106].…”
Section: Swementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The sensitivity for SWE has been reported as 63.8 -93.8 %, and the specificity as 50 -88.2 % [96, 97, 100, 102, 104 -106]. The most recent meta-analysis [82] included 14 studies and 2851 thyroid nodules with cut-off values ranging from 26.6 to 85.2 kPa. It concluded that 2D-SWE has a fairly good diagnostic accuracy although the sensitivity and specificity are average.…”
Section: Swementioning
confidence: 99%