Trial reportEndocrine journal2026
Comparison of two puncture techniques for fine-needle capillary biopsy in thyroid nodules: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Endocrine journal, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To-and-fro puncture and to-and-fro whirling puncture are two common specimen acquisition methods of thyroid fine-needle capillary (FNC) biopsy. While both techniques are widely used, a direct comparison of their outcomes has been lacking. This prospective study enrolled 110 patients with 138 thyroid nodules. Each nodule underwent four punctures: two using the to-and-fro technique and two using the to-and-fro whirling technique. The primary outcome was specimen adequacy, while secondary outcomes included malignancy diagnosis rate, sensitivity, diagnostic accuracy, and procedure time. No significant difference was found in specimen adequacy between the two techniques (90.58% vs. 89.86%, p = 0.839). However, the to-and-fro technique demonstrated superior performance in terms of malignancy diagnosis rate (31.88% vs. 20.29%, p = 0.028), sensitivity (100.00% vs. 81.82%, p = 0.006), and diagnostic accuracy (97.78% vs. 83.33%, p = 0.041). Additionally, the to-and-fro technique required less procedure time (18.38 ± 8.34 seconds vs. 20.84 ± 10.54 seconds, p < 0.001). In conclusion, both the to-and-fro puncture technique FNC and the to-and-fro whirling puncture technique FNC demonstrated comparable specimen adequacy, and both can achieve good specimen adequacy. The to-and-fro puncture technique shows potential advantages in terms of operation time, reduction of the risk of missed diagnosis of malignant tumors, sensitivity, and diagnostic accuracy. Trial registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2400080882. Registered 14 February 2024.
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.