Cited by 86Reliability and Agreement in MeasurementThyroid Disorders and TreatmentsThyroid Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment

Observer Variation in the Clinical and Laboratory Evaluation of Patients with Thyroid Dysfunction and Goiter

JARLØV, ANNE E., NYGAARD, BIRTE, HEGEDÜS, LASZLO, HARTLING, SVEND G., HANSEN, JENS M.·1998·Thyroid

Abstract

Three endocrinologists assessed thyroid function (hypothyroid, possibly hypothyroid, euthyroid, possibly hyperthyroid, or hyperthyroid), thyroid size (small, medium, or large), thyroid type (diffuse, nodular, or solitary nodule), and diagnosis and treatment options in 55 patients (47 women and 8 men) with a median age of 43 years (range 19 to 74) suspected of thyroid disease. The observers were presented stepwise for the (1) patient, clinical examination, and patient history; (2) blood tests; (3) 99mTc-pertechnetate scintigraphy; and (4) ultrasonography. The reproducibility was assessed by means of the K coefficient. Compared with evaluation of the patient alone, agreement on thyroid dysfunction was almost perfect when the results of the blood tests were known. The K values for pairs of observers rose significantly from 0.55 to 0.65 to 0.88 to 0.93. All three observers altered their opinion as to thyroid dysfunction in one third of the patients when the blood tests were known. Compared with evaluation of the patient alone, agreement on the morphology of the thyroid gland did not improve significantly in spite of access to thyroid scintigraphy; with the addition of thyroid ultrasound, agreement improved significantly for some pairs of observers. The three observers agreed on the rough estimate of thyroid size in only 36% of the patients. When all information was available, the three observers agreed on diagnosis and treatment category in 60% of the patients. Doctors should bear in mind the considerable observer variation when they evaluate patients with suspected thyroid disease.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1089/thy.1998.8.393

Cites

10 of 10 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
JARLØV, A. E., NYGAARD, B., HEGEDÜS, L., HARTLING, S. G., & HANSEN, J. M.
Affiliations
Herlev Hospital (DK)
Venue
Thyroid
Published
1998-05
Volume
8
Issue
5
Pages
393-398
ISSN
  • 1050-7256 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-9077
OpenAlex
W1986813772
Cited by
86
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 2
FWCI
3.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Thyroid (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Thyroid Disorders and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Thyroid Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Keywords
observer variability, interobserver agreement, thyroid dysfunction, goiter, hypothyroidism, hyperthyroidism, thyroid morphology, thyroid scintigraphy, thyroid ultrasound, thyroid function tests
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Female, Goiter, Hematologic Tests, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Thyroid Diseases, Thyroid Function Tests, Thyroid Gland, Reproducibility of Results, Observer Variation, Clinical Laboratory Techniques

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