Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34146249›Full record

ArticleEndocrine2021

Effect of needle gauge on thyroid FNA diagnostic rate.

Sivan Saraph, Hector Cohen, Ohad Ronen

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Endocrine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

3 authors.

Sivan SaraphAzrieli Faculty of Medicine, Bar Ilan University, Safed, Israel.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6432-9081
Hector CohenDepartment of Pathology, Galilee Medical Center, Nahariya, Israel.
Ohad RonenAzrieli Faculty of Medicine, Bar Ilan University, Safed, Israel. ohadr@gmc.gov.il.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7084-0695

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThyroid Bethesda classification system provides 6 diagnostic categories, the first being a sample deemed non-diagnostic or insufficient and requiring a subsequent second biopsy. Our objective was to evaluate differences in non-diagnostic fine needle aspiration (FNA) of thyroid nodules conducted with a 23-gauge(G) needle vs. those conducted with a 25 G needle.

methodsData from 298 aspiration procedures using either 23 G or 25 G needles were collected, including cytological findings, ultrasound characteristics and patient demographics. The samples were classified as diagnostic or non-diagnostic according to final cytology.

resultsThere was no statistically significant difference between the 25 G and 23 G needles in terms of non-diagnostic rates (35.7%, 31.9%; p = 0.494). Nodules defined as cystic had higher non-diagnostic rates (p < 0.05). Older patients as well as cystic nodules were associated with a higher non-diagnostic rate (OR = 1.018, p = 0.047, OR = 13.533, p = 0.0001, respectively), while nodule size was associated with lower non-diagnostic rates (OR = 0.747, p = 0.017).

conclusionsThe use of 25 G needle did not produce a lower non-diagnostic rate when compared to 23 G needle. Larger nodules might increase diagnostic rates, while older patients and cystic nodules are prone to inadequate samples. Patients and caregivers should be aware that FNA of small or cystic nodules as well as nodules in older patients may result in a higher non-diagnostic rate. Further research comparing other needles gauges should be conducted.

Indexed as

Thyroid NeoplasmsThyroid NoduleAgedBiopsy, Fine-NeedleCytodiagnosisHumansRetrospective StudiesUltrasonographyFine needle aspirationNeedle gaugeNon-diagnostic ratesThyroid nodule

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.