ArticleActa endocrinologica (Bucharest, Romania : 2005)
IS REPEAT FNAB NECESSARY FOR THYROID NODULES WITH ND / UNS CYTOLOGY?
Article in Acta endocrinologica (Bucharest, Romania : 2005). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Investigating the Applicability of the McGill Thyroid Nodule Score (MTNS) in Patients Undergoing Surgery for Thyroid Nodules: A Comparison Between Patients with and Without Papillary Thyroid Cancer.Journal of clinical practice and research · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Context/Objective: The standard approach is to perform repeat FNAB (rFNAB) in thyroid nodules with non-diagnostic (ND) / insufficient (UNS) cytology. However, due to the nature of these nodules, recurrent FNABs may also be insufficient. Therefore, by comparing the clinical-radiological-pathological parameters of nodules with a definite diagnosis of excision, we questioned the possibility of patient management without rFNAB. Methods: Clinical-radiological parameters of 275 nodules belonging to 264 patients in the ND/UNS aspiration group with definite pathological diagnosis after surgery were determined. Under the guidance of these parameters, those with and without rFNAB were compared. Results: The incidence of malignancy was found to be significantly higher in nodules without rFNAB compared to nodules with rFNAB (p = 0.036). In addition, the incidence of malignancy in BC-1 nodules without rFNAB was significantly higher than in nodules with rFNAB result also BC-1 (p = 0.009). In all cases, nodule size smaller than 10 mm and border irregularity were found to be statistically significant for malignancy (p <0.020, p <0.002). When looking at the distribution of rFNAB results, a significant correlation was observed with female gender, solid component, hypoechogenicity, border irregularity and halo loss around the nodule in patients with BC-4,5,6 cytology results (respectively, 0.005 / 0.031 / 0.001 / 0.012 / 0.004). Conclusion: rFNAB did not show the expected effect in ND / UNS nodules. We recommend direct surgical excision without rFNAB for nodules with border irregularity, solid structure, halo loss and hypoechogenicity, which should be considered more important in female patients.
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.