Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35843955›Full record

SynthesisBMC endocrine disorders2022

Diagnostic accuracy of palpation versus ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy for diagnosis of malignancy in thyroid nodules: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Tri Juli Edi Tarigan, Budiman Syaeful Anwar, Robert Sinto, Wismandari Wisnu

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC endocrine disorders, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Tri Juli Edi Tarigan *Division of Endocrinology, Metabolism and Diabetes, Department of Internal Medicine, Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo National General Hospital, Faculty of Medicine Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia. tri.judi@ui.ac.id.
Budiman Syaeful Anwar *Department of Internal Medicine, Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo National General Hospital, Faculty of Medicine Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Robert SintoDivision of Infection and Tropical Disease, Department of Internal Medicine, Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo National Referral Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Wismandari WisnuDivision of Endocrinology, Metabolism and Diabetes, Department of Internal Medicine, Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo National General Hospital, Faculty of Medicine Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Rumah Sakit Umum Pusat Nasional Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo · IDUniversity of Indonesia · ID

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Thyroid nodule is a common health problem in endocrinology. Thyroid fine-needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB) cytology performed by palpation guided FNAB (PGFNAB) and ultrasound-guided FNAB (USGFNAB) are the preferred examinations for the diagnosis of thyroid cancer and part of the integration of the current thyroid nodule assessment. Although studies have shown USGFNAB to be more accurate than PGFNAB, inconsistencies from several studies and clinical guidelines still exist.The purpose of this study is to compare the diagnostic accuracy of Palpation versus Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration Biopsy in diagnosing malignancy of thyroid nodules.The systematic review and meta-analysis were prepared based on the PRISMA standards. Literature searches were carried out on three online databases (Pubmed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Proquest) and grey literatures. Data extraction was carried out manually from various studies that met the eligibility, followed by analysis to obtain pooled data on sensitivity, specificity, Diagnostic Odds Ratio (DOR) and Area Under Curve (AUC), and the comparison of the two methods.Total of 2517 articles were obtained, with 11 studies were included in this systematic review. The total sample was 2382, including 1128 subjects using PGFNAB and 1254 subjects using USGFNAB. The risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2 with mild-moderate results. The results of sensitivity, specificity, AUC and DOR in diagnosing thyroid nodules using PGFNAB were 76% (95% CI, 49-89%), 77% (95% CI, 56-95%), 0.827 and 11.6 (95% CI, 6-21) respectively. The results of sensitivity, specificity, AUC and DOR in diagnosing thyroid nodules using USGFNAB were 90% (95% CI, 81-95%), 80% (95% CI, 66-89%), 0.92 and 40 (95% CI, 23-69), respectively the results of the comparison test between PGFNAB and USGFNAB; Tsens USGFNAB of 0.99 (p = 0.023), AUC difference test of 0.093 (p = 0.000023).The diagnostic accuracy of USGFNAB is higher than PGFNAB in diagnosing malignancy of thyroid nodules. If it is accessible, the author recommends using USGFNAB as a diagnostic tool for thyroid nodules.

Indexed as

Thyroid NeoplasmsThyroid NoduleBiopsy, Fine-NeedleHumansPalpationSensitivity and SpecificityUltrasonography, InterventionalFine-needle aspiration biopsyPalpable versus USG guidedThyroid nodules

Identifiers

PMID35843955
PMCPMC9290285
OpenAlexW4285677165

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.