Thyroid nodules are very common all over the world, and China is no exception. Ultrasound plays an important role in determining the risk stratification of thyroid nodules, which is critical for clinical management of thyroid nodules. For the past few years, many versions of TIRADS (Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data System) have been put forward by several institutions with the aim to identify whether nodules require fine-needle biopsy or ultrasound follow-up. However, no version of TIRADS has been widely adopted worldwide till date. In China, as many as ten versions of TIRADS have been used in different hospitals nationwide, causing a lot of confusion. With the support of the Superficial Organ and Vascular Ultrasound Group of the Society of Ultrasound in Medicine of the Chinese Medical Association, the Chinese-TIRADS that is in line with China's national conditions and medical status was established based on literature review, expert consensus, and multicenter data provided by the Chinese Artificial Intelligence Alliance for Thyroid and Breast Ultrasound.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

The thyroid imaging reporting and data system (TIRADS) and Bethesda system for reporting thyroid cytopathology (BSRTC) have been used for interpretation of ultrasound and fine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) results of thyroid nodules. BRAFV600E mutation analysis is a molecular tool in diagnosing thyroid carcinoma. Our objective was to compare the diagnostic value of these methods in differentiating high-risk thyroid nodules. Total 220 patients with high-risk thyroid nodules were recruited in this prospective study. They all underwent ultrasound, FNAC and BRAFV600E mutation analysis. The sensitivity and specificity of TIRADS were 73.1% and 88.4%. BSRTC had higher specificity (97.7%) and similar sensitivity (77.6%) compared with TIRADS. The sensitivity and specificity of BRAFV600E mutation (85.1%, 100%) were the highest. The combination of BSRTC and BRAFV600E mutation analysis significantly increased the efficiency, with 97.8% sensitivity, 97.7% specificity. In patients with BSRTC I-III, the mutation rate of BRAFV600E was 64.5% in nodules with TIRADS 4B compared with 8.4% in nodules with TIRADS 3 or 4A (P < 0.001). Our study indicated that combination of BSRTC and BRAFV600E mutation analysis bears a great value in differentiating high-risk thyroid nodules. The TIRADS is useful in selecting high-risk patients for FNAB and patients with BSRTC I-III for BRAFV600E mutation analysis.

To evaluate the impact of thyroid nodule sizes on the diagnostic performance of thyroid imaging reporting and data system (TIRADS) and ultrasound patterns of 2015 American Thyroid Association (ATA) guidelines. Total 734 patients with 962 thyroid nodules were recruited in this retrospective study. All nodules were divided into three groups according to the maximal diameter (d < 10 mm, d = 10–20 mm and d > 20 mm). The ultrasound images were categorized based on TIRADS and ATA ultrasound patterns, respectively. A total of 931 (96.8%) and 906 (94.2%) patterns met the criteria for TIRADS and ATA ultrasound patterns. The AUC (0.849) and sensitivity (85.3%) of TIRADS were highest in d = 10–20 mm group. However, ATA had highest AUC (0.839) and specificity (89.8%) in d > 20 mm group. ATA ultrasound patterns had higher specificity (P = 0.04), while TI-RADS had higher sensitivity (P = 0.02). In nodules d > 20 mm, the specificity of ATA patterns was higher than TIRADS (P = 0.003). Our results indicated that nodule sizes may influence the diagnostic performance of TIRADS and ATA ultrasound patterns. The ATA patterns may yield higher specificity than TIRADS, especially in nodules larger than 20 mm.

The optimal fasting blood glucose (FBG) target of achieving HbA1c less than 7.0% in type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients remains controversial. This open‐label trial randomized (1:3:3) 947 adults with uncontrolled T2D (HbA1c >7% to ≤10.5%) who were using one to three oral antidiabetic drugs to achieve an FBG target of 3.9 < FBG ≤5.6 mmol/L (Group 1), 3.9 < FBG ≤6.1 mmol/L (Group 2) or of 3.9 < FBG ≤7.0 mmol/L (Group 3). Targets were achieved using a pre‐defined insulin glargine 100 U/mL titration scheme. The primary endpoint was proportion of patients achieving HbA1c <7.0% at 24 weeks. At 24 weeks, 44.4%, 46.1% and 37.7% of patients achieved HbA1c <7.0% in Groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively (P = 0.017; Group 2 vs Group 3). Alert hypoglycaemia (glucose ≤3.9 mmol/L) was significantly more frequent in Group 1 than in Group 3 (38.9 vs 23.3%; P < 0.001) but was not in Group 2 vs Group 3 (27.5% vs 23.3%; P = 0.177). Clinically important hypoglycaemia (glucose ≤3.0 mmol/L) was reported in 4.8%, 2.0% and 3.8% of patients in Groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively. In conclusion, the optimal FBG target for most Chinese patients with T2D appears to be 3.9‐6.1 mmol/L.

No abstract