Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22744413›Full record

ArticleDer Pathologe2012

[Bethesda classification of fine needle punctures of the thyroid. Much ado about nothing really new?].

R Schäffer, K W Schmid, M Tötsch

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Der Pathologe, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

R SchäfferFunktionsbereich Zytopathologie, Institut für Pathologie, Universitätsklinikum Gießen-Marburg, Langhansstr. 10, 35385, Gießen, Deutschland. Raimund.Schaeffer@patho.med.uni-giessen.de
K W Schmid
M Tötsch

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Bethesda system for reporting thyroid cytopathology was published in 2008 (Baloch et al. 2008, Cytojournal 5:6; Baloch et al. 2008, Diagn Cytopathol 36:425-437) offering a classification system which is closely related to clinical data. The aim was to ensure adequate terminology without risk of errors in understanding, to advise clinicians concerning therapeutic options in relationship to cytological diagnoses as well as to facilitate the comparison of cytology data at national and international levels. However, mainly due to specific US American (both medical and legal) demands, this classification system is not yet fully appreciated in most European countries. The reasons are various: (a) Criteria for representative material are much more restrictive than those commonly used and in Germany a higher number of (unnecessary) repunctures would be the consequence. (b) It remains doubtful whether the introduction of a new and rather heterogeneous category of "atypia of undetermined significance or follicular lesion of undetermined significance" would contribute to a substantial decrease of findings classified as "follicular neoplasia". Furthermore it is unlikely that clinicians would be willing to accept the recommended conservative approach with repuncture if a new diagnostic category is associated with a calculated risk of malignancy in 5-15% cases. (c) Until now an integration of new developments in molecular markers into the Bethesda system is missing. Thus, for experienced cytologists the Bethesda system for reporting thyroid cytopathology offers very limited benefits in comparison to the currently used, established and highly accepted classification systems. However, a positive argument remains the fact that an internationally accepted classification system may improve the comparability of the results of national and international studies on thyroid findings.

Indexed as

Adenocarcinoma, FollicularAdenocarcinoma, PapillaryAdenoma, OxyphilicBiopsy, Fine-NeedleCarcinomaCarcinoma, MedullaryCarcinoma, Squamous CellCell Transformation, NeoplasticCross-Cultural ComparisonCytological TechniquesDiagnosis, DifferentialEuropeHumansLymphomaPredictive Value of TestsTerminology as Topic

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.