Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 281

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The predictive value of ultrasound findings in the management of thyroid nodules

Open access
Cappelli, C., Castellano, M., Pirola, I., Cumetti, D., Agosti, B., Gandossi, E., Agabiti Rosei, E.·2006·QJM

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Thyroid nodules are a common medical problem, but whether fine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) is mandated for smaller non-palpable nodules, is controversial. AIM: To evaluate whether ultrasonographic features of thyroid nodules are associated with histological malignancy, and to identify useful criteria for clinical decision-making. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. METHODS: From January 1991 to September 2004, 5198 patients were referred to our hospital for ultrasound evaluation of thyroid nodules. Overall, 7455 nodules (diameters from 6 to 100 mm) were examined; 2865 (38.4%) were <10 mm in diameter. All patients with suspicious or malignant cytology underwent surgery. RESULTS: Of the 349 nodules undergoing surgery, 284 were malignant. The prevalence of cancer was slightly higher in nodules>or=10 mm in diameter vs. those<10 mm (5.5% vs. 3.0%, p<0.01). However, histological type and local aggressiveness were largely independent of nodule size. Microcalcifications (72.2% vs. 28.7%; p<0.001; OR 6.4, 95%CI 4.9-8.4), blurred margins (52.8% vs. 18.8%; p<0.001; OR 4.8, 95%CI 3.8-6.1), solid hypoechoic appearance (80.6% vs. 52.4%; p<0.001; OR 3.8, 95%CI 2.8-5.1), size>or=10 mm (77.4% vs. 64.9%; p<0.001; OR 1.9, 95%CI 1.4-2.5) and intranodular vascular pattern type 2 (61.6% vs. 49.7%; p<0.001; OR 1.6, 95%CI 1.2-2.0) were all significantly more frequent in malignant than in benign nodules. These associations were similar when large and small nodules were analysed separately. DISCUSSION: No single parameter, including nodule size, satisfactorily identifies a subset of patients to be electively investigated by FNAC, although several may be useful in this regard.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/qjmed/hcl121

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 281

Metadata

Authors
Cappelli, C., Castellano, M., Pirola, I., Cumetti, D., Agosti, B., Gandossi, E., & Agabiti Rosei, E.
Venue
QJM
Published
2006-12-17
Volume
100
Issue
1
Pages
29-35
ISSN
  • 0033-5622 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2725
  • 1460-2393
OpenAlex
W2126103936
Cited by
281
References
1
FWCI
7.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The predictive value of ultrasound findings in the management of thyroid nodules. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/qjmed/hcl121
The paper
Cappelli, C., Castellano, M., Pirola, I., Cumetti, D., Agosti, B., Gandossi, E., & Agabiti Rosei, E. (2006). The predictive value of ultrasound findings in the management of thyroid nodules. QJM. https://doi.org/10.1093/qjmed/hcl121

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.