ArticleIndian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India2019
A Comparison of the Diagnostic Efficiency of Guided Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology Versus Conventional Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology of the Thyroid.
Article in Indian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India, 2019. 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.
- Diagnostic accuracy of palpation versus ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy for diagnosis of malignancy in thyroid nodules: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC endocrine disorders · 2022Pooled it
- The Impact of Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration Cytology in the Management of Thyroid Nodule.Indian journal of surgical oncology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) is possibly the most useful investigation for the thyroid. However, conventional FNAC (C-FNAC) is limited by a high rate of inadequate samples. Ultrasound guided FNAC (US-FNAC) has been proposed as an alternative. This study aims to estimate the measures of diagnostic accuracy of FNAC as well as to compare US-FNAC against C-FNAC. Patients who underwent FNAC at our for a period of 5 years were selected. This comprised of 237 C-FNAC cases and 173 US-FNAC cases. Out of these 410 cases, 129 cases had cyto-histological correlation. The proportion of inadequate samples, malignant cases as well as indeterminate cases were compared between US-FNAC and C-FNAC. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), likelihood ratios for positive and negative results and odds ratio were estimated for overall FNAC as well as US-FNAC and C-FNAC patients. US-FNAC has a significantly lower proportion of inadequate samples (0.58 vs. 15.19%), as well as a lower proportion of indeterminate samples (1.7 vs. 7.6%) and a higher proportion of malignant cases (6.4 vs. 2.1%). When the inadequate samples were excluded, the results for tests of diagnostic effectiveness for overall FNAC, US-FNAC and C-FNAC respectively ranged between 66.67 and 80% for sensitivity, between 86.05 and 100% for specificity, between 45.45 and 100% for PPV and between 97.37 and 98.7% for NPV. FNAC is a useful test for differentiating malignant from benign lesions. When inadequate samples are excluded, both US-FNAC and C-FNAC are accurate diagnostic tests. However, US-FNAC is a more useful test since it results in a lower number of inadequate samples. Also, US-FNAC results in a greater yield of malignancy and a lower percentage of indeterminates, possibly due to additional information received from ultrasound examination.
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.