Observational studyMedicine2018
Significance of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in differential diagnosis of thyroid nodules.
Observational study in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Contrast-enhanced ultrasound of the small organs in children.Pediatric radiology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present study was aimed to compare the application values between 2-dimensional color Doppler ultrasonography (2DUS) and contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) in the differential diagnosis of thyroid malignant nodules.A total of 124 patients suspectedly diagnosed with malignant thyroid nodules under conventional gray-scale ultrasonography were recruited in this study. All enrolled patients were examined by both 2DUS and CEUS.A total of 153 nodules (94.44%) and 45 cases (90.00%) with malignant nodules were detected by the CEUS. No significant differences were noted in nodule detection rates between 2DUS and CEUS (χ = 1.170, P = .279; χ = 0.796, P = .372). The aspect ratio, microcalcification, internal echo, borderline, Vmax, resistance index, and total scores of malignant nodules were higher than those of benign nodules (all P < .05) when diagnosed by 2DUS. The peripheral/internal enhancement time, peak intensity, local enhancement, ring enhancement, and total scores of malignant nodules were significantly higher compared with those of benign nodules (all P < .05) by CEUS. Total score of malignant nodules diagnosed by 2DUS was approximately 3.5 and 2.3 points for CEUS. The diagnostic accuracy of 2DUS as observed by area under the curve was 0.821 with the cut-off value of 3.9, the sensitivity was 82.5%, and the specificity was 85.6%. The diagnostic accuracy of CEUS was 0.862 with the cut-off value of 2.8, the sensitivity was 86.7%, and the specificity was 91.3%.Both 2DUS and CEUS are worthy of application values in the differential diagnosis from benign to malignant thyroid 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.