ArticleEndocrine pathology2016
Should Core Needle Biopsy be Used in the Evaluation of Thyroid Nodules?
Article in Endocrine pathology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The role of core needle biopsy in the diagnosis of initially detected thyroid nodules: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European radiology · 2018Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fine needle aspiration (FNA) is the first choice in thyroid nodules suspected of harboring malignancy on sonography in routine practice. However, sampling with core needle biopsy (CNB) is also being used, especially in cases with repeated nondiagnostic/indeterminate diagnoses. The aim of this study was the retrospective evaluation of CNB samples. A total of 604 thyroid CNB samples registered in the Department of Pathology at Bezmialem Foundation University Medical Faculty within the 1-year period between June 2014 and June 2015 were re-evaluated by correlation with previous FNA and later resection results. CNB was divided into diagnostic groups of insufficient, malignant, suspicious for malignancy, no evidence of malignancy/benign, atypia of uncertain significance (AUS)/follicular lesions of uncertain significance (FLUS), and follicular neoplasm (FN)/suspicious for follicular neoplasm (SFN). Among the 604 cases, 15 cases (2.48 %) were classified as malignant and 9 cases (1.49 %) as suspicious for malignancy. No evidence of malignancy was seen in 512 cases (84.76 %). There were 26 (4.3 %) cases in the AUS/FLUS-FN/SFN group, and the sample was inadequate in 42 cases (6.95 %). Resection was performed for 17 of the cases classified as malignant or suspicious for malignancy, and all were found to be malignant. There were also 10 resected cases with a diagnosis of no evidence of malignancy, and all were found to be benign. We think that sampling with CNB may be useful especially in repeating inadequate biopsies or cases diagnosed with AUS/FLUS that have hesitations regarding clinical management. Larger series including comparisons with FNA and resection results are required.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27306998What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.