ReviewCancers2024
Comparison of Liquid-Based Preparations with Conventional Smears in Thyroid Fine-Needle Aspirates: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cancers, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 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
- Article
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Fine-Needle Aspiration Cytology (FNAC) in Thyroid Nodule Excision Cases.Cureus · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo compare conventional smears (CSs) and liquid-based preparations (LBPs) for diagnosing thyroid malignant or suspicious lesions.
methodsStudies in the PubMed, SCOPUS, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane database published up to December 2023. We reviewed 17 studies, including 15,861 samples.
resultsThe diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) for CS was 23.6674. The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.879, with sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value of 0.8266, 0.8668, 0.8969, and 0.7841, respectively. The rate of inadequate specimens was 0.1280. For LBP, the DOR was 25.3587, with an AUC of 0.865. The sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value were 0.8190, 0.8833, 0.8515, and 0.8562. The rate of inadequate specimens was 0.1729. For CS plus LBP, the AUC was 0.813, with a lower DOR of 9.4557 compared to individual methods. Diagnostic accuracy did not significantly differ among CS, LBP, and CS plus LBP. Subgroup analysis was used to compare ThinPrep and SurePath. The DORs were 29.1494 and 19.7734. SurePath had a significantly higher AUC.
conclusionsThere was no significant difference in diagnostic accuracy or proportion of inadequate smears between CS and LBP. SurePath demonstrated higher diagnostic accuracy than ThinPrep. Recommendations for fine-needle aspiration cytology should consider cost, feasibility, and accuracy.
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.