ArticleThyroid research2026
Real-world agreement in the ultrasound classification of subcapsular thyroid nodules: comparison with expert assessment.
Article in Thyroid research, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUltrasound (US) is the most accurate tool for the assessment of thyroid nodules (TNs). Despite the subcapsular position of TNs may represent a game changer for clinical practice in selecting cases for biopsy or surgery, this parameter is not included in US-based risk stratification systems. The present study evaluated the agreement of endocrinologists using US in clinical practice with the experts' results employed as reference standard.
methodsA sub-series of TNs for which the agreement between US expert endocrinologists and radiologists was perfect was assumed as reference. Participants of the 2025 Thyroid Update of Associazione Medici Endocrinologi (AME) were asked to assess TNs in a 3-choice answer: subcapsular, non-subcapsular, or uncertain. The agreement was determined according to majority consensus (i.e., ratings > 50% = final consensus outcome) and Fleiss κ (from 0.1 to 1.0).
resultsThe series included 13 TNs (6/13 cancer, 7/13 echographically at high risk) whose median distance from the anterior and posterior thyroid capsule was 0 and 1.5 mm, respectively. One hundred and six endocrinologists (females, 62%; age, < 40 years 33%; specialized professionals, 81%) participated as raters. The TNs assessed by experts as subcapsular were judged as subcapsular in 90% to 97% of votes. The TNs assessed as non-subcapsular by experts were classified as non-subcapsular by 3% to 48% of votes. The majority consensus fully matched the experts' assessment (κ = 1.0, p = 0.0003). The distance from the anterior thyroid capsule was an independent factor of assessment (p = 0.005, R
conclusionsClinical endocrinologists largely agree with experts' assessment in subcapsular cases where experts had perfect concordance while uncertainty is present for non-subcapsular nodules. Future studies should establish a standardized definition of subcapsular TN.
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.