Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 224

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.

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·Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7863/jum.1998.17.8.487

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

Cited by

See all 224

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.