The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Thyroid palpation versus high-resolution thyroid ultrasonography in the detection of nodules.
Abstract
Detection of thyroid nodules by physical examination and high-resolution ultrasonography was compared using small groups of blinded, experienced physician examiners working with a sample of 2441 persons from Estonia, most of whom were Chernobyl nuclear reactor clean-up workers. A random subsample of 113 (5%) persons was subjected to triple control examinations with both physical examination and high-resolution ultrasonography. Positive high-resolution ultrasonographic findings were considerably more reproducible among different observers than were positive physical examination findings. Agreement between methods was poor. Nodules were found in 169 (6.9%) subjects by physical examination and in 249 (10.2%) subjects by high-resolution ultrasonography. Physical examination found only 53 (21%) of the 249 nodules found by high-resolution ultrasonography. High-resolution ultrasonography did not confirm the existence of 115 (68%) of the 169 nodules found by physical examination. Only 6.4% of nodules less than 0.5 cm in diameter, as based on high-resolution ultrasonographic results, were detected by physical examination. Physical examination detection improved with increasing nodule size but was still only 48.2% for nodules larger than 2 cm. Physical examination was relatively effective in detecting nodules in the isthmus of the thyroid gland but much less so for nodules in the upper pole of the gland. Clinical evaluation and epidemiologic studies of nodular thyroid disease stand to benefit from the greater sensitivity and specificity of ultrasonographic examinations.
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
Issues and Epidemiological Evidence regarding Radiation-Induced Thyroid Cancer
Shore, R. E. (1992) · Radiation Research · doi:10.2307/3578322 · Cited by 263
Cited by
Increasing Incidence of Thyroid Cancer in the United States, 1973-2002
Davies, L., & Welch, H. G. (2006) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.295.18.2164 · Cited by 3,369
Management of Simple Nodular Goiter: Current Status and Future Perspectives
Hegedüs, L., Bonnema, S. J., & Bennedbæk, F. N. (2003) · Endocrine Reviews · doi:10.1210/er.2002-0016 · Cited by 710
Epidemiology of Thyroid Nodules
Parsa, A. A., & Gharib, H. (2018) · Thyroid Nodules · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-59474-3_1 · Cited by 423
Li, N., Du, X. L., Reitzel, L. R., Xu, L., & Sturgis, E. M. (2013) · Thyroid · doi:10.1089/thy.2012.0392 · Cited by 262
The role of imaging in Graves’ disease: A cost-effectiveness analysis
Cappelli, C., Pirola, I., De Martino, E., Agosti, B., Delbarba, A., Castellano, M., & Rosei, E. A. (2008) · European Journal of Radiology · doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.03.015 · Cited by 65
Metadata
- Authors
- Wiest, P. W., Hartshorne, M. F., Inskip, P. D., Crooks, L. A., Vela, B. S., Telepak, R. J., Williamson, M. R., Blumhardt, R., Bauman, J. M., & Tekkel, M.
- Venue
- Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1998-08
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 487-496
- ISSN
- 0278-4297 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2121526259
- Cited by
- 224
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 1.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Thyroid palpation versus high-resolution thyroid ultrasonography in the detection of nodules. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.7863/jum.1998.17.8.487
- The paper
- Wiest, P. W., Hartshorne, M. F., Inskip, P. D., Crooks, L. A., Vela, B. S., Telepak, R. J., Williamson, M. R., Blumhardt, R., Bauman, J. M., & Tekkel, M. (1998). Thyroid palpation versus high-resolution thyroid ultrasonography in the detection of nodules. Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine. https://doi.org/10.7863/jum.1998.17.8.487
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.