Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32117069›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in endocrinology2020

Comparison of Diagnostic Accuracy of Thyroid Cancer With Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration and Core-Needle Biopsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Ling Lan, Yong Luo, Meicen Zhou, Lili Huo, Hailing Chen, Qingyao Zuo, Wei Deng

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Value of a BRAFFrontiers in endocrinology · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ling LanEndocrinology Department, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, The Fourth Clinical College of Peking University, Beijing, China.
Yong LuoDepartment of Urology, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Meicen ZhouEndocrinology Department, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, The Fourth Clinical College of Peking University, Beijing, China.
Lili HuoEndocrinology Department, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, The Fourth Clinical College of Peking University, Beijing, China.
Hailing ChenEndocrinology Department, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, The Fourth Clinical College of Peking University, Beijing, China.
Qingyao ZuoEndocrinology Department, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, The Fourth Clinical College of Peking University, Beijing, China.
Wei DengEndocrinology Department, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, The Fourth Clinical College of Peking University, Beijing, China.
Peking University · CNBeijing Jishuitan Hospital · CNCapital Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the accuracy of fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and core-needle biopsy (CNB) in diagnosing thyroid cancer. The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were retrieved up to May 2019, and the overall accuracy of FNA and CNB in diagnosing thyroid cancer was evaluated by meta-analysis. The sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), and negative likelihood ratio (NLR) were calculated. The summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was estimated, and the area under the ROC curve (AUC) was calculated. Ten eligible studies, involving 10,078 patients with 10,842 thyroid nodules, were included. The overall sensitivity and specificity of FNA and CNB for thyroid cancer were 0.72 [95 % confidence interval (CI): 0.69-0.74], 0.99 (95% CI: 0.98-0.99), and 0.83 (95% CI: 0.81-0.85), 0.99 (95% CI: 0.98-0.99), respectively. Other parameters used to assess efficacy included PLR 41.71 (2.15-808.27) and 51.56 (3.20-841.47), NLR 0.31 (0.22-0.42) and 0.22 (0.15-0.32), for FNA and CNB, respectively. Overall, the pooled summary ROC (AUC) value of FNA and CNB was 0.9025 and 0.7926, respectively. No significant difference was observed between the two AUCs of FNA and CNB (

Indexed as

Biopsy, Fine-NeedleBiopsy, Large-Core NeedleHumansImage-Guided BiopsyROC CurveThyroid NeoplasmsUltrasonographybiopsyfine-needle aspirationmeta-analysissystematic reviewthyroid cancer

Identifiers

PMID32117069
PMCPMC7033392
OpenAlexW3006542607

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.