ArticleSisli Etfal Hastanesi tip bulteni2021
Evaluation of Thyroid Fine-Needle Aspiration Biopsies according to Cytological Methods and Comparison with Histopathological Diagnosis.
Article in Sisli Etfal Hastanesi tip bulteni, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Thyroid-originated pleomorphic rhabdomyosarcoma with novel TP 53 intron frameshift mutation: a case report and literature review.World journal of surgical oncology · 2025Review
- Review
- Comparison of Conventional Smear and Liquid-Based Cytology in Adequacy of Thyroid Fine-Needle Aspiration Biopsies without an Accompanying Cytopathologist.Sisli Etfal Hastanesi tip bulteni · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesIn this study, we aim to compare the results of aspiration of thyroid nodules evaluated according to the Bethesda category (BC) with tissue diagnoses in the operation materials and to compare the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy rates according to cytology methods.
methodsThe previous fine-needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB) of thyroid nodules of 879 cases diagnosed histopathologically between 2010 and 2017 was examined. The FNAB results determined according to the Bethesda system were matched with tissue diagnoses, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy rates were investigated according to cytology methods.
resultsSensitivity, specificity, Positive predictive value (PPV), Negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy rates were found in all FNAB results (in units of %; Sensitivity; 84.7, Specificity; 81.1, PPV; 74.1, NPV; 89.2, Accuracy; 82.5). All of the cytological evaluation methods of thyroid FNABs were found to be reliable and effective (Generally, the results are 80% and above). Specificity and accuracy rates were close to the general average (82.5%) in all methods. However, in cases evaluated with liquid base cytology (LBC) method and in addition to LBC or conventional smear (CS), the sensitivity rates in cases where cell block (CB) were evaluated together were higher than cases in which LBC and CS were used alone (92.6% and 91.0%). When examined statistically, there was no significant difference concerning sensitivity, specificity and accuracy rates of cytological methods (p>0.05, respectively, p=0.576, 0.065, 0.643).
conclusionIn cytopathology, when evaluating thyroid aspirations, it is seen that the LBC method is used instead of CS. In our study, we recommend the use of the LBC method, which seems to have the highest sensitivity (taking into account its technical advantages), instead of CS. However, we think that both CS and LBC methods should be evaluated by supporting them with cell block sections.
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.