ArticleSisli Etfal Hastanesi tip bulteni2022
Comparison of Conventional Smear and Liquid-Based Cytology in Adequacy of Thyroid Fine-Needle Aspiration Biopsies without an Accompanying Cytopathologist.
Article in Sisli Etfal Hastanesi tip bulteni, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Additive diagnostic value of liquid‑based preparation and conventional smears in Bethesda I thyroid nodules.American journal of clinical pathology · 2026Article
- Recent topics on thyroid cytopathology: reporting systems and ancillary studies.Journal of pathology and translational medicine · 2025Article
- Proposal for including risk of malignancy and clinical management in the Japanese system for reporting thyroid cytopathology - A multi-institutional study.CytoJournal · 2025Article
- Review
- Article
- A Comparative Analysis of Liquid-Based Cytology and Conventional Smears in Fine-Needle Aspirates of Thyroid Lesions.Cureus · 2023Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: In this study, we aimed to compare the adequacy of conventional smear (CS) and liquid-based cytology (LBC) methods in thyroid fine-needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB) samples obtained without an accompanying cytopathologist during the procedure. Furthermore, we aimed to investigate the presence of a significant difference between the rates of nodules classified as Bethesda Category III and malignancy in both techniques and the features of the nodules affecting malignancy. Methods: A total of 625 nodules from 572 patients who were found suitable for biopsy were included in this retrospective study. FNABs were performed by interventional radiologists without an accompanying cytopathologist during the procedures. The specimens were either prepared using CS or LBC preparation methods. Cytopathological diagnostic adequacy and cytopathological results of the specimens were evaluated according to Bethesda category, and the relationship between the morphological findings was evaluated retrospectively. Results: Of all the biopsy preparations, 338 (54.1%) of them were transferred to pathology in liquid-based solution and 287 (45.9%) were transferred as CS. Malignancy rates of the biopsy samples were found similar in both LBC and CS methods. Considering the nodules classified as Bethesda Category II, III, IV, V, and VI, there was no statistical difference between the results of both methods. Non-diagnostic biopsy rate was higher in the specimens prepared by CS method (p<0.001). Conclusion: In this study, the adequacy rate of FNAB was found significantly higher in LBC method compared to the CS method. LBC was more practical and faster than the CS method. We think that LBC method may be preferred in FNAB of thyroid nodules.
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.