↓ Skip to main content

Long- versus short-interval follow-up of cytologically benign thyroid nodules: a prospective cohort study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Long- versus short-interval follow-up of cytologically benign thyroid nodules: a prospective cohort study
Published in
BMC Medicine, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12916-016-0554-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marco Medici, Xiaoyun Liu, Norra Kwong, Trevor E. Angell, Ellen Marqusee, Matthew I. Kim, Erik K. Alexander

Abstract

Thyroid nodules are common, and most are benign. Given the risk of false-negative cytology (i.e. malignancy), follow-up is recommended after 1-2 years, though this recommendation is based solely on expert opinion. Sonographic appearance may assist with planning, but is limited by large inter-observer variability. We therefore compared the safety and efficacy of long- versus short-interval follow-up after a benign initial aspiration, regardless of sonographic appearance. This study evaluated all patients referred to the Brigham and Women's Hospital Thyroid Nodule Clinic, between 1999 and 2010, with a cytologically benign nodule >1 cm and who had returned for follow-up sonographic evaluation. Despite standard clinical recommendations, variation in patient compliance resulted in variable follow-up intervals from time of initial aspiration to the first repeat evaluation. Main outcome measures included nodule growth, repeat fine needle aspiration (FNA), thyroidectomy, malignancy, and disease-specific mortality. We evaluated 1,254 patients with 1,819 cytologically benign nodules, with a median time to first follow-up of 1.4 years (range, 0.5-14.1 years). The longer the follow-up interval, the more nodules grew and the more repeat FNAs were performed (P <0.001). The most clinical meaningful endpoints of malignancy or mortality, however, did not differ between the various follow-up intervals. The risk of a thyroidectomy (usually because of compressive symptoms) increased when time to first follow-up exceeded >3 years (4.9 % vs. 1.2 %, P = 0.0001), though no difference in malignancy risk was identified (0.2-0.8 %, P = 0.77). No (0 %) thyroid cancer-specific deaths were identified in either cohort. While expert opinion currently recommends repeat evaluation of a cytologically benign nodule at 1-2 years, these are the first data to demonstrate that this interval can be safely extended to 3 years without increased mortality or patient harm. Nodule growth can be expected, though detection of malignancies is unchanged. While replication of these data in large prospective multicenter studies is needed, this extension in follow-up interval would reduce unnecessary visits and medical interventions for millions of affected patients worldwide, leading to healthcare savings. Please see related commentary article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016-0559-9 and research article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0419-z .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 4 9%
Student > Master 4 9%
Professor 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 10 23%
Unknown 14 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 12%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Unspecified 1 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 17 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 August 2016.
All research outputs
#18,836,571
of 23,342,092 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#3,274
of 3,513 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#289,907
of 399,339 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#42
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,342,092 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,513 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 44.1. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 399,339 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.