ArticleEuropean thyroid journal2025
Evaluation of thyroid ultrasound reports' quality in the Community of Madrid, Spain.
Article in European thyroid journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the current quality of thyroid ultrasound reports in the Community of Madrid. Methods: Consecutive thyroid ultrasound reports from patients evaluated in the endocrine outpatient clinics of eight academic hospitals in the Community of Madrid were assessed for quality during 2021 and 2022. Descriptions of eight different features were evaluated: number and axes of dimensions, composition, echogenicity, margins, shape, calcifications and category of suspicion. Features were considered adequately reported if described for all nodules ≥1 cm. The number of correctly reported features was compared by year of data capture (2021 vs 2022), specialty of the informant (radiologist vs endocrinologist), and origin of the report (in-house vs outsourced center). The quality of reports for assessing the need for cytological evaluation and/or growth during follow-up was evaluated. Results: A total of 1234 reports were included, 63% from 2021; 82% were issued by radiologists and 89% were issued in-house. Composition and echogenicity were the most frequently reported (79% and 72%, respectively). The rest of the features were appropriately described in less than half of the reports. Forty percent of the reports were good to select nodules for biopsy, 23% had sufficient data to assess growth during follow-up, and only 13% met both quality criteria. The overall quality of reports was worse in outsourced centers (median number of described features 2 vs 4, P < 0.001) and better when issued by endocrinologists (median number of described features 6 vs 3, P < 0.001). Conclusions: Most thyroid ultrasound reports issued in the Community of Madrid provide insufficient data to make management decisions regarding 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.