Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39724136›Full record

ArticleJAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery2025

Intraoperative Parathyroid Hormone Monitoring Criteria in Primary Hyperparathyroidism: A Network Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy.

Phillip Staibano, Michael Au, Han Zhang, Sheila Yu, Winnie Liu, Jesse D Pasternak, Xing Xing, Carolyn D Seib, Lisa Orloff, Nhu-Tram Nguyen and 7 more

Erratum issuedAbstract readNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors.

Phillip StaibanoDivision of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Michael AuDivision of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Han ZhangDivision of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Sheila YuDivision of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Winnie LiuDivision of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Jesse D PasternakDepartment of Surgery, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Xing XingDepartment of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.
Carolyn D SeibStanford-Surgery Policy Improvement Research and Education Center (S-SPIRE), Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
Lisa OrloffDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, California.
Nhu-Tram NguyenDepartment of Oncology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Michael K GuptaDivision of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Eric MonteiroDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Sameer ParpiaDepartment of Health Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Tyler McKechnieDepartment of Health Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Alex ThabaneDepartment of Health Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
J E M Ted YoungDivision of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Mohit BhandariDepartment of Health Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Intraoperative parathyroid hormone (IOPTH) monitoring is recommended by the American Association of Endocrine Surgeons for use during parathyroidectomy for patients with primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT), but there is no clinician consensus regarding the IOPTH monitoring criteria that optimize diagnostic accuracy. Objective: To evaluate and rank the diagnostic properties of IOPTH monitoring criteria used during surgery for patients with PHPT. Data Sources: A bayesian diagnostic test accuracy network meta-analysis (DTA-NMA) was performed, in which peer-reviewed citations from January 1, 1990, to July 22, 2023, were searched for in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and CINAHL. Study Selection: All full-text study designs that evaluated any IOPTH monitoring criteria as a diagnostic test were included in this meta-analysis. Any studies evaluating adult patients diagnosed with PHPT undergoing parathyroidectomy were also included. The reference standard used in this study was normalization of calcium and/or parathyroid hormone levels within 1 year of surgery. Data Extraction and Synthesis: This DTA-NMA was reported in accordance with the applicable Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines. Two reviewers evaluated all abstracts and full-text articles using a piloted extraction form. A third author resolved any conflicts. There are no published Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) resources for DTA-NMA. The following conventional monitoring criteria were included: Halle, Miami, Rome, Vienna, and PTH normalization, and the following modified criteria were included: Miami and PTH normalization, modified Miami, and modified Vienna. A bayesian hierarchical DTA-NMA model with corresponding 95% credible intervals (CrIs) was used to describe the pooled diagnostic characteristics of the evaluated IOPTH monitoring criteria. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcomes included pooled diagnostic test properties, including sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio. Results: A total of 72 studies, which included 19 072 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Sixty-nine studies (95.8%) investigated classic PHPT. In PHPT, the Miami criteria were investigated most often and had the best diagnostic properties (diagnostic odds ratio, 60.00 [95% CrI, 32.00-145.00]) when compared to other conventional criteria. Moreover, the modified Miami criteria, which measures a postexcision IOPTH level 15 minutes or more postexcision of all hyperfunctioning parathyroid tissue, were the overall best criteria (diagnostic odds ratio, 79.71 [95% CrI, 22.46-816.67]). There was a low risk of study bias and no publication bias. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this meta-analysis suggest that surgeons should use the modified Miami criteria when performing IOPTH-guided surgery for patients with PHPT because these criteria optimize intraoperative diagnostic accuracy by minimizing unnecessary neck exploration and revision surgery rates.

Indexed as

Hyperparathyroidism, PrimaryMonitoring, IntraoperativeParathyroidectomyParathyroid HormoneBayes TheoremHumansParathyroid Hormone

Identifiers

PMID39724136
PMCPMC11907319

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.