ArticleCureus2025
Ultrasound-Guided Versus Freehand Fine Needle Aspiration: A Comparative Study in Diagnosing Non-Salivary, Non-Thyroidal Head, and Neck Masses.
Article in Cureus, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) is widely used to evaluate head and neck masses, with both ultrasound (US)-guided and freehand techniques being employed. While US-guided FNAC is thought to enhance accuracy, freehand FNAC remains commonly used due to its practicality and speed. This study compares the diagnostic performance of US-guided and freehand FNAC, evaluating their sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, inconclusive rates, and time to histological confirmation. Aim of the study The aim of this study is to compare the inconclusive rates and time to histological confirmation of US-guided versus freehand FNAC in assessing non-salivary, non-thyroidal head, and neck masses. Methods A retrospective analysis of 439 FNAC reports (2012-2016) was conducted. Diagnostic metrics, including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), accuracy, inconclusive rates, and median time to histological confirmation, were analyzed. Results Among 439 FNAC procedures, 294 were US-guided and 145 were freehand. US-guided FNAC had a lower inconclusive rate (11.6% vs. 17.9%; p = 0.068) and higher specificity (61% vs. 38%), while sensitivity was comparable (91% vs. 95%). Accuracy was 81.6% for US-guided FNAC and 86.3% for freehand FNAC. Freehand FNAC had a shorter median reporting time (29 vs. 42 days). Conclusions Both techniques demonstrated similar diagnostic accuracy. While US-guided FNAC reduced inconclusive rates and improved specificity, freehand FNAC provided faster results, aiding quicker clinical decision-making. These findings suggest that both techniques have distinct benefits, and their use should be tailored to individual patient needs and clinical settings.
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.