SynthesisFrontiers in endocrinology2025
Precision of predictive nomograms for lymph node metastasis of thyroid cancer from Chinese real-world study: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Current guidelines lack nomograms to predict lymph node metastasis (LNM) in thyroid carcinoma (TC) in China. Nomograms are simple, accurate tools to estimate the probability of specific events and have been extensively developed to predict LNM in TC. However, few effective nomograms have been validated in clinical practice. Methods: The recommendations of the Cochrane Prognosis Methods Group were implemented in this systematic review. We conducted searches in PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus for published research. The nomogram was categorized based on outcomes. We summarized the key characteristics and effectiveness of the nomogram and assessed the overall risk of bias (ROB). We employed random-effects and bivariate mixed-effects models to estimate the efficacy of the nomogram group and its predictive reliability. Results: The systematic review identified 57 nomogram models from China, of which only 14 had external validation cohorts. While the applicability was acceptable, the heterogeneity among the included nomograms was substantial, leading to a high overall risk of bias (ROB). Ultrasound information was utilized in nearly all studies. Size, extrathyroidal extension (ETE), tumor consistency index (TCI), and multifocality are commonly employed independent risk factors. Both outcome models showed good to excellent predictive efficacy. However, the performance of models that integrate radiomics with clinical features was inferior to those using ultrasound alone. Conclusions: The feature-combined model offers several potential outcomes and advantages for clinical practice in China. Additionally, the systematic review serves as a reference tool for physicians to select appropriate nomograms based on individual clinical needs. Future research should focus on external validation and evaluation to minimize limitations in clinical utility.
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.