Cited by 184Thyroid Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentThyroid and Parathyroid SurgeryThyroid Disorders and Treatments

Thyroid nodule guidelines: agreement, disagreement and need for future research

Paschke, Ralf, Hegedüs, Laszlo, Alexander, Erik, Valcavi, Roberto, Papini, Enrico, Gharib, Hossein·2011·Nature Reviews Endocrinology

Abstract

This article reviews agreement, disagreement and need for future research of the thyroid nodule guidelines published by the British Thyroid Association, National Cancer Institute, American Thyroid Association and the joint, transatlantic effort of three large societies, the American Society of Clinical Endocrinologists, Associazione Medici Endocrinologi and the European Thyroid Association, published in 2010. Consensus exists for most topics in the various guidelines. A few areas of disagreement, such as the use of scintigraphy, are mostly due to differences in disease prevalence in different countries. Most of the discordance, for example, on the use of calcitonin screening or fine-needle aspiration cytology classification, could probably be resolved by further expert discussions, as the basis is the same published evidence. Importantly, owing to a current lack of evidence in many areas, clinically very relevant areas of uncertainty need to be addressed by further research. This situation applies, for instance, to better definition of ultrasound malignancy criteria and the evaluation of emerging new diagnostic and therapeutic techniques, including molecular markers. For clinicians who advise individual patients, these areas of uncertainty can currently only be resolved by sound management on the basis of clinical judgment, experience and patient preference.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nrendo.2011.1

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 66 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Paschke, R., Hegedüs, L., Alexander, E., Valcavi, R., Papini, E., & Gharib, H.
Affiliations
  • Leipzig University (DE)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • Santa Maria Nuova Hospital (IT)
  • Ospedale Regina Apostolorum (IT)
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
Corresponding author
Paschke, Ralf
Venue
Nature Reviews Endocrinology
Published
2011-03-01
Volume
7
Issue
6
Pages
354-361
ISSN
  • 1759-5029 (ISSN-L)
  • 1759-5037
OpenAlex
W1971484806
Cited by
184
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 30 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 14
FWCI
3.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nature Reviews Endocrinology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Southern Denmark Research Portal (University of Southern Denmark) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Thyroid Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Thyroid and Parathyroid Surgery
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Thyroid Disorders and Treatments
Keywords
thyroid nodules, thyroid scintigraphy, calcitonin screening, fine needle aspiration cytology, molecular markers, thyroid cancer diagnosis
MeSH terms
Forecasting, Health Services Needs and Demand, Humans, Ultrasonography, Thyroid Nodule, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Consensus, Dissent and Disputes, Biomedical Research, Biopsy, Fine-Needle

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review