ArticleMolecular and clinical oncology2017
Ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy for differential diagnosis of thyroid nodules: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Molecular and clinical oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Reevaluating diagnostic categories and associated malignancy risks in thyroid core needle biopsy.Journal of pathology and translational medicine · 2023Review
- Article
- Usage and Diagnostic Yield of Fine-Needle Aspiration Cytology and Core Needle Biopsy in Thyroid Nodules: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Literature Published by Korean Authors.Clinical and experimental otorhinolaryngology · 2021Article
- Core-needle biopsy in thyroid nodules: performance, accuracy, and complications.European radiology · 2019Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ultrasound-guided core needle biopsy (US-CNB) of thyroid nodules is a relatively new technique used in surgical workup. However, no systematic review of this method has yet been performed. In the present meta-analysis, literature databases consisting of Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, Scopus and Google Scholar were searched. Following eligibility assessments of the studies, quality appraisals were performed on the included studies using the Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 method. The data were systematically analyzed by using Review Manager (version 5.3) and Meta-Disc (version 1.4). Eight investigations were included, and the study qualities were good. There were 1,621 nodules included in the final meta-analysis. The summary estimated that US-CNB had a sensitivity of 0.96 [95% confidence interval (CI)=0.94-0.97] and a specificity of 0.96 (95% CI=0.94-0.97). Positive and negative likelihood ratios, and the diagnostic odds ratio of US-CNB were 18.20 (95% CI=2.21-156.41), 0.08 (95% CI=0.02-0.27) and 250.60 (95% CI=19.11-3286.76), respectively. The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.979. Therefore, US-CNB may be considered as a reliable method in the assessment of thyroid nodules, and has an acceptable risk of complications.
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.