The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Accuracy of Thyroid Nodule Ultrasound to Predict Thyroid Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Open accessAbstract
CONTEXT: Significant uncertainty remains surrounding the diagnostic accuracy of sonographic features used to predict the malignant potential of thyroid nodules. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to summarize the available literature related to the accuracy of thyroid nodule ultrasound (US) in the prediction of thyroid cancer. METHODS: We searched multiple databases and reference lists for cohort studies that enrolled adults with thyroid nodules with reported diagnostic measures of sonography. A total of 14 relevant US features were analyzed. RESULTS: We included 31 studies between 1985 and 2012 (number of nodules studied 18,288; average size 15 mm). The frequency of thyroid cancer was 20%. The most common type of cancer was papillary thyroid cancer (84%). The US nodule features with the highest diagnostic odds ratio for malignancy was being taller than wider [11.14 (95% confidence interval 6.6-18.9)]. Conversely, the US nodule features with the highest diagnostic odds ratio for benign nodules was spongiform appearance [12 (95% confidence interval 0.61-234.3)]. Heterogeneity across studies was substantial. Estimates of accuracy depended on the experience of the physician interpreting the US, the type of cancer and nodule (indeterminate), and type of reference standard. In a threshold model, spongiform appearance and cystic nodules were the only two features that, if present, could have avoided the use of fine-needle aspiration biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: Low- to moderate-quality evidence suggests that individual ultrasound features are not accurate predictors of thyroid cancer. Two features, cystic content and spongiform appearance, however, might predict benign nodules, but this has limited applicability to clinical practice due to their infrequent occurrence.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · Cited by 39,552
QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies
Whiting, P. F., Rutjes, A. W. S., Westwood, M. E., Mallett, S., Deeks, J. J., Reitsma, J. B., Leeflang, M. M. G., Sterne, J. A. C., Bossuyt, P. M. M., & the QUADAS-2 Group* (2011) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009 · Cited by 14,199
Cooper, D. S., Doherty, G. M., Haugen, B. R., Kloos, R. T., Lee, S. L., Mandel, S. J., Mazzaferri, E. L., McIver, B., Pacini, F., Schlumberger, M., et al. (2009) · Thyroid · doi:10.1089/thy.2009.0110 · Cited by 6,707
The diagnostic odds ratio: a single indicator of test performance
Glas, A. S., Lijmer, J. G., Prins, M. H., Bonsel, G. J., & Bossuyt, P. M. M. (2003) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(03)00177-x · Cited by 2,261
The case of the misleading funnel plot
Lau, J., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Terrin, N., Schmid, C. H., & Olkin, I. (2006) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.333.7568.597 · Cited by 1,766
Cited by
Haugen, B. R., Alexander, E. K., Bible, K. C., Doherty, G. M., Mandel, S. J., Nikiforov, Y. E., Pacini, F., Randolph, G. W., Sawka, A. M., Schlumberger, M., et al. (2016) · Thyroid® · doi:10.1089/thy.2015.0020 · Cited by 16,535
Lin, J. S., Bowles, E. J. A., Williams, S. B., & Morrison, C. C. (2017) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2017.0562 · Cited by 1,082
Metadata
- Authors
- Brito, J. P., Gionfriddo, M. R., Al Nofal, A., Boehmer, K. R., Leppin, A. L., Reading, C., Callstrom, M., Elraiyah, T. A., Prokop, L. J., Stan, M. N., Murad, M. H., Morris, J. C., & Montori, V. M.
- Venue
- The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism
- Publisher
- The Endocrine Society
- Published
- 2014-04-01
- Volume
- 99
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1253-1263
- ISSN
- 0021-972X (ISSN-L)
- 1945-7197
- OpenAlex
- W1963950405
- Cited by
- 488
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 3.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
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.