ArticleDiscover oncology2025
Thyroid nodule size and risk of malignancy: a systematic review.
Article in Discover oncology, 2025. 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.
- Correlation Between Thyroid Nodule Size and Risk of Thyroid Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study at a Tertiary Care Center.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Multimodal risk assessment of malignancy in thyroidology for nodules with indeterminate cytology.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2026Article
- Quantitative Ultrasound Grayscale Analysis and Size of Benign and Malignant Solid Thyroid Nodules.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is ongoing uncertainty about the association between thyroid nodule size and likelihood of malignancy. Researchers are divided, some proposing that risk is increased with nodule size while others claim the opposite. Numerous studies have been completed but there is at present no agreed consensus. Furthermore, the diagnostic accuracy of fine needle aspiration (FNA), the standard test for investigating thyroid nodules is disputed. Reported ranges of false negatives range from 2 to 20%.
aimsThe overall aims of this study were to investigate the relationship between thyroid nodule size and malignancy and to examine the association between FNA results and malignancy rates in small and large nodules.
designSystematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies examining the association between malignancy and thyroid nodule size.
methodsA systematic review was completed using search words 'thyroid, nodule and size' in PubMed database. Criteria for inclusion were retrospective or prospective studies with nodule size and final pathology and/or FNA results that had a primary focus on adult populations.
resultsIn total 17 studies were deemed eligible for inclusion. 16 studies were included in the first meta-analysis looking at the relationship between nodule size and malignancy rates. Overall, nodules over 4 cm were associated with a lower incidence of malignancy, 15% compared with 37%. A Random effects model meta-analysis was undertaken, which also indicated a trend towards a lower risk of malignancy in nodules over 4 cm, with a risk difference of 0.1 (95% CI - 0.01, 0.21). However, there was significant heterogeneity with an I
conclusionWhile there is a trend towards larger nodule being less likely to indicate malignancy, thyroid nodule size does not appear to have a significant influence on the accuracy of FNA in predicting cancer. Thyroid nodule size alone should not influence the decision to refer for further tests or surgery as it is an unreliable predictor of malignancy in isolation. However, taken in conjunction with clinical and radiological findings it may be a useful adjunct to guiding treatment.
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.