ReviewEndocrine oncology (Bristol, England)2026
Cytological biomarkers and risk of malignancy in indeterminate thyroid nodules: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Endocrine oncology (Bristol, England), 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Thyroid nodules with indeterminate cytology are often referred for diagnostic surgery. This systematic review evaluated diagnostic markers in fine-needle aspiration cytology samples of indeterminate nodules to improve differentiation between benign and malignant nodules. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from 1995 to 2025. The literature was screened, and data were extracted from the included studies. The quality of studies was assessed with QUADAS-2. We performed split component meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy using R-studios and the SCS meta-function (split component synthesis). Results: Forty-one relevant studies were identified, of which 23 eligible studies were included in the meta-analysis. Data on Galectin-3, HBME-1, and BRAF mutation from 1,564 patients were evaluated. Galectin-3 and HBME-1 demonstrated promising diagnostic accuracy, with diagnostic odds ratios (DORs) of 20.3 (95% CI: 9.7-42.5) and 15.0 (95% CI: 7.3-31.0), sensitivities of 0.74 (95% CI: 0.64-0.82) and 0.77 (95% CI: 0.67-0.84), and specificities of 0.88 (95% CI: 0.80-0.93) and 0.82 (95% CI: 0.73-0.89), respectively. Combined positivity yielded the highest DOR of 45.8 (95% CI: 17.7-118.6), sensitivity of 0.90 (95% CI: 0.81-0.95), and specificity of 0.84 (95% CI: 0.73-0.91). BRAF mutation had the lowest DOR of 6.6 (95% CI: 2.1-20.4) and sensitivity of 0.17 (95% CI: 0.09-0.29) but the highest specificity of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.93-0.99). Conclusion: Our meta-analysis indicates that Galectin-3 and HBME-1, particularly when combined, may improve differentiation between benign and malignant nodules. BRAF mutation is highly specific but lacks sensitivity. These biomarkers show potential, but none warrant stand-alone clinical use, emphasizing the need for large-scale validation and potentially a multi-marker approach to improve diagnostic accuracy.
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.