Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26732040›Full record

ArticleEndocrine2016

Diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in solid thyroid nodules with and without enhancement.

Qiong Wu, Yan Wang, Yi Li, Bing Hu, Zhi-Yan He

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Endocrine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

5 authors.

Qiong WuDepartment of Ultrasound in Medicine, Shanghai Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University Affiliated Sixth People's Hospital, 600 Yishan Road, Shanghai, 200233, China.
Yan WangDepartment of Ultrasound in Medicine, Shanghai Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University Affiliated Sixth People's Hospital, 600 Yishan Road, Shanghai, 200233, China. yannanfly@126.com.
Yi LiDepartment of Ultrasound in Medicine, Shanghai Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University Affiliated Sixth People's Hospital, 600 Yishan Road, Shanghai, 200233, China.
Bing HuDepartment of Ultrasound in Medicine, Shanghai Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University Affiliated Sixth People's Hospital, 600 Yishan Road, Shanghai, 200233, China.
Zhi-Yan HeDepartment of Radiology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University Affiliated First People's Hospital, Shanghai, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We aimed to investigate different enhancement patterns of solid thyroid nodules on contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and then to evaluate the corresponding diagnostic performance in the differentiation of benign and malignant nodules with and without enhancement. 229 solid thyroid nodules in 196 patients who had undergone both conventional ultrasound and CEUS examinations were classified into enhancement and non-enhancement groups. Besides, different enhancement patterns in the enhancement group were characterised with five indicators including arrival time, mode of entrance, echo intensity, homogeneity, and washout time. Then aforementioned indicators were compared between benign and malignant nodules of different sizes (<10 mm and >10 mm), and diagnostic performance of significant enhancement indicators was calculated. As for the enhancement group, there were statistically significant differences of <10 mm subgroup among three CEUS indicators including arrival time, mode of entrance, and washout time between malignant and benign thyroid nodules (p < 0.05), while all CEUS indicators showed statistically significant differences in the total group and ≥10 mm subgroup (p < 0.05). All the five CEUS indicators displayed better diagnostic performance with specificity (92.86, 92.14, 95.71, 90.71, and 90.71 %, respectively) and diagnostic accuracy (80.79, 79.48, 74.67, 75.11, and 81.66 %, respectively), while the sensitivity and negative predictive value of non-enhancement were 95.51 and 95.83 %, respectively, with an accuracy of 77.29 %. CEUS is a very promising diagnostic technique that could improve the diagnostic accuracy of identifying benign thyroid lesions to spare a large number of patients an unnecessary invasive procedure.

Indexed as

Contrast MediaAdultAgedAged, 80 and overDiagnosis, DifferentialFemaleHumansImage EnhancementMaleMiddle AgedSensitivity and SpecificityThyroid GlandThyroid NeoplasmsThyroid NoduleUltrasonographyYoung AdultContrast MediaContrast-enhanced ultrasoundConventional ultrasoundSonographic featuresThyroid nodules

Identifiers

PMID26732040

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.