ArticleEndocrine pathology2020
Exploring the Inter-observer Agreement Among the Members of the Italian Consensus for the Classification and Reporting of Thyroid Cytology.
Article in Endocrine pathology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Analysis of histological features and recurrence risk assessment of papillary thyroid carcinoma according to presurgery FNAC category.Updates in surgery · 2025Article
- Clinical management of indeterminate thyroid nodules needs to be revisited. New evidence for a personalized approach to the problem.Journal of endocrinological investigation · 2025Observational
- The Italian Consensus for the Classification and Reporting of Thyroid Cytology: Cytohistologic and molecular correlations on 37,371 nodules from a single institution.Cancer cytopathology · 2022Article
- Repeat thyroid FNAC: Inter-observer agreement among high- and low-volume centers in Naples metropolitan area and correlation with the EU-TIRADS.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2022Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Classification schemes for reporting thyroid cytology of fine needle aspiration (FNA) of thyroid nodules are largely used in clinical practice, but the level of inter-observer agreement among cytopathologists is poorly acknowledged. The present study aimed to explore the inter-observer agreement among the experienced authors of the 2014 Italian Consensus for Classification and Reporting of Thyroid Cytology (ICCRTC). A stratified randomization was performed in order to obtain a sample homogeneously distributed and representative of all ICCRTC classes. Four high-experience raters were randomly selected among the extensors of the Italian consensus. They independently reviewed 60 FNA samples blindly of the initial cytological report and clinical features. Their overall agreement was evaluated according to Fleiss' kappa. The overall inter-observer agreement was moderate (κ 0.46). Specifically, a good agreement was found when the samples were consistent for malignancy (TIR5) or were not adequate for diagnosis (TIR1) (κ 0.67 and κ 0.73, respectively). A moderate agreement was present for suspicious-for-malignant category (TIR4), and a fair agreement was recorded in the two intermediate ones (TIR3A and TIR3B) (κ 0.36 and κ 0.35, respectively). For clinical purposes, the agreement was good (κ 0.74) in differentiating cases with surgical indication (TIR4/TIR5) from those in which surgery is not essential or requires limited extension (TIR3B/TIR3A/TIR2). In conclusion, the present study confirms the reliability of ICCRTC. These data represent a reference for cytopathologists using this system and are useful for the practice of clinicians and surgeons.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32621106What 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.