ArticleBMC endocrine disorders2016
The predictive value of sonographic images of follicular lesions - a comparison with nodules unequivocal in FNA - single centre prospective study.
Article in BMC endocrine disorders, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic Value of Six Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data Systems (TIRADS) in Cytologically Equivocal Thyroid Nodules.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
- Thyroid nodules with Hürthle cells: the malignancy risk in relation to the FNA outcome category.Journal of endocrinological investigation · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo determine the diagnostic efficacy of ultrasonographic malignancy risk features (UMRFs) in follicular lesions (FL) in a population with low risk of malignancy in FL and to compare it with a similar analysis in a group of patients with unequivocal cytology (UC): benign lesion (BL) or malignant neoplasm (MN).
methodsPresence of UMRFs (hypoechogenicity, solid echostructure, taller-than-wide shape, pathological vascularization, irregular margins, microcalcifications and macrocalcifications) and their sets were assessed in 322 FL: 202 follicular lesions of undetermined significance (FLUS) and 120 suspicious for follicular neoplasm (SFN) and 300 nodules with UC: 200 BL and 100 MN, subsequently evaluated histopathologically.
resultsCancers were confirmed in 100% nodules in MN group (89.0% of them were papillary carcinomas - PTC), in 6.4% FLUS nodules (69.2% PTC), and in 10.8% SFN nodules (30.8% PTC). In the UC group all UMRFs occurred more frequently in cancers than in benign lesions. In the FL group only calcifications were found in cancers more frequently - macro and microcalcifications together: 34.6 vs. 11.5% (p = 0.001) and isolated macrocalcifications: 26.0 vs. 6.8% (p = 0.001); the presence of those features increased the basic risk of malignancy in FL more than 2 times. The presence of at least 2 of the following URMFs: hypoechogenicity, solid echostructure, any type of calcifications and suspected shape, additionally improved sensitivity.
conclusionsEvaluation of UMRFs in FLs is less effective than in nodules with UC, and its effectiveness decreases parallel to the decrease in percentage of PTCs among malignant neoplasms and to the increase of the percentage of adenomas among benign nodules. The presence of macrocalcifications in such FLs significantly increases the basic risk of malignancy in these nodules.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.