ArticleBMC medical imaging2022
Malignancy risk of thyroid nodules: quality assessment of the thyroid ultrasound report.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 2022. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sociodemographic and clinical predictors of malignancy in thyroid nodules: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Pooled it
- Nomogram for predicting papillary thyroid carcinoma risk combined with clinical, biochemical and ultrasonographic indicators.BMC cancer · 2026Article
- Article
- Evaluation of thyroid ultrasound reports' quality in the Community of Madrid, Spain.European thyroid journal · 2025Article
- Epidemiological exploration of the impact of bluetooth headset usage on thyroid nodules using Shapley additive explanations method.Scientific reports · 2024Article
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThyroid nodules are a challenge in clinical practice and thyroid ultrasonography is essential for assessing the risk of malignancy. The use of ultrasound-based malignancy risk classification systems has been recommended by several scientific societies but radiologist's adherence to these guidelines may vary. The authors aimed to analyze the quality of the information provided by the thyroid ultrasound report, to assess the malignancy risk of thyroid nodules, in Portugal.
methodsMulticenter and retrospective study, conducted in three of the five Portuguese NUTS2 corresponding to about 88.3% of the mainland population. We included 344 consecutive unselected participants aged ≥ 18 years who underwent thyroid ultrasonography in 2019. The description of six features of the dominant thyroid nodule was analyzed: maximum size, shape, margins, composition, echogenicity and echogenic foci. A utility score, including these six features, was used as an indicator of the report's quality. A score of 4 was considered as a minimum value.
resultsMaximum diameter was reported for all nodules. Shape, margins, composition, echogenicity and echogenic foci were reported in 8.1%, 25.0%, 76.5%, 53.2% and 20.9%, respectively. Only 21.8% of the nodules had a score ≥ 4. At least one of four suspicious features, including marked hypoechogenicity, microcalcifications, irregular margins and non-oval shape, was identified in 8.7% of the nodules. Cervical lymph nodes' status was reported in 93% of the exams. The risk category was only reported in 7.8% of the participants.
conclusionThe adherence of Portuguese radiologists to a standardized reporting model and to an ultrasound-based malignancy risk stratification system is still low and has implications for the correct characterization of the malignancy risk of nodules and the decision to perform fine-needle aspiration biopsy.
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.