Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31900180›Full record

SynthesisDiagnostic pathology2020

Causes of misdiagnoses by thyroid fine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC): our experience and a systematic review.

Yanli Zhu, Yuntao Song, Guohui Xu, Zhihui Fan, Wenhao Ren

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Diagnostic pathology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed
7.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

49 citing papers in PubMed, 96 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Thyroid cytology: practical tricks and pitfalls.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2026
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Yanli ZhuKey laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Department of Pathology, Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Beijing, 100142, China.
Yuntao SongKey laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Department of Head and Neck Surgery, Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Beijing, 100142, China.
Guohui XuKey laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Department of Head and Neck Surgery, Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Beijing, 100142, China.
Zhihui FanKey laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Department of Ultrasound, Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Beijing, 100142, China.
Wenhao RenKey laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Department of Pathology, Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Beijing, 100142, China. 295723446@qq.com.
Peking University · CNPeking University Cancer Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveFNA is a simple, safe, cost-effective and accurate diagnostic tool for the initial screening of patients with thyroid nodules. The aims of this study were to determine the diagnostic utility of FNAC performed in our institution, assess the cytomorphologic features that contribute to diagnostic errors and propose improvement measures.

methodsA total of 2781 FNACs were included in the study, and 1122 cases were compared with their histological diagnoses. We retrospectively reexamined our discordant (both false-negative and false-positive) cases and performed a systematic review of previous studies on causes of misdiagnoses.

resultsWhen DC V and DC VI were both considered cytologic-positive, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and diagnostic accuracy were 98.3, 30.9, 94.9, 58.3 and 93.5%, respectively. If DC VI was considered cytologic-positive, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and diagnostic accuracy of FNAC were 98.0, 84.0, 99.4, 58.3, and 97.5% respectively. The main cause of false-negative diagnoses was sampling error (13/15, 86.7%), while interpretation error led to the majority of the false-positive diagnoses (38/47, 80.9%). Overlapping cytological features in adenomatous hyperplasia, thyroiditis and cystic lesions were the major factors contributing to interpretation errors, while the size and number of nodules may have led to false-negative diagnoses because of heterogeneity and unsampled areas.

conclusionsThe sensitivity and PPV of thyroid FNAC in our institution were higher than those in the published data, while the specificity and NPV were lower. Regarding the FNA category DC V, a frozen section analysis during diagnostic lobectomy is necessary. Multiple passes should be performed in various parts of a large nodule or from different nodules to reduce the risk of false-negative findings. Cytopathologists should strengthen their criteria for the identification of adenomatous hyperplasia, thyroiditis and cystic lesions to avoid false-positive diagnoses. NIFTP has little effect on diagnostic accuracy and the distribution of diagnostic errors.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBiopsy, Fine-NeedleCarcinoma, PapillaryDiagnostic ErrorsFalse Negative ReactionsFalse Positive ReactionsFemaleFrozen SectionsHumansMaleMiddle AgedSensitivity and SpecificityThyroid GlandFalse-negativeFalse-positiveFine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC)Noninvasive follicular thyroid neoplasm with papillary-like nuclear features (NIFTP)Thyroid

Identifiers

PMID31900180
PMCPMC6942345
OpenAlexW3008430638

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.