Investigators reviewed 304 paired cytology and histopathology records from three health facilities in Hawassa. The cohort included only patients who had both procedures performed on the same anatomical site between 30 October 2024 and 29 October 2025. The team classified FNAC results by the Bethesda reporting system. In this series, FNAC yielded determinate or diagnostic smears in 81.6% of cases. That leaves a notable minority of specimens that were non-diagnostic by cytology; the authors recommended attention to sampling and processing to address that gap.
Data indicated robust test performance for cytology when histopathology served as the gold standard. The sensitivity of FNAC was reported as 88.2% (CI 77.6–95.1%). Specificity was 94.4% (CI 90.6–97.1%). Positive predictive value stood at 80.3% (CI 68.7–89.3%); negative predictive value was higher at 96.8% (CI 93.8–98.7%). Overall diagnostic accuracy for differentiating benign from malignant lesions was 93.1%. The authors used cross-tabulation and chi-square testing to derive their diagnostic comparisons; the source did not provide additional subanalyses by Bethesda category or lesion subtype in the abstract.
The study team reported a false negative rate of 2.4% and a false positive rate of 4.4% in this sample. These discordant results reflect the residual risk when relying on FNAC alone; a small number of malignant lesions were not identified on cytology, and a small number of benign lesions were interpreted as malignant. The source did not supply detailed case-level descriptions, histologic types of the discordant tumors, or whether ultrasound guidance was used for each FNAC in the abstract.
Investigators assembled data in Kobo Toolbox and exported it to SPSS version 27 for analysis. The article states that cross-tabulation and χ² testing were the primary analytic approaches. Ethical clearance was obtained from Hawassa University College of Medicine and Health Sciences IRB (reference IRB/372/16), and the authors note that the work was a retrospective chart review without direct patient contact. The dataset is available from the institutional IRB and from the corresponding author on request. The source explicitly indicates this is a preprint on medRxiv and has not been peer reviewed.
The authors recommended strengthening pre-analytical and procedural elements to raise FNAC performance further. Specifically, they advised improvements in sample handling and the incorporation or wider use of ultrasound guidance for aspiration. They also urged strict adherence to Bethesda reporting criteria as a quality measure. These measures, the authors suggested, could reduce non-diagnostic specimens and lower discordant rates between cytology and histopathology.
The abstract did not provide granular methodological details such as the number of operators, whether ultrasound guidance was used consistently, specimen adequacy thresholds, or Bethesda-category-specific outcomes. Those details were not reported in the abstract and therefore cannot be assumed. The authors noted the retrospective design and reliance on existing records; that imposes inherent limits on control of sampling and reporting. Finally, the manuscript is a medRxiv preprint and has not undergone peer review; the authors and the platform caution that these findings should not be used to change clinical practice until validated through full peer review and possible external replication.
End points that remain unanswered in the abstract include Bethesda-category breakdowns, lesion-level histologic types for discordant cases, operator experience, and whether ultrasound guidance was uniformly applied. The authors listed strengthening sampling, imaging guidance, and adherence to Bethesda criteria as practical next steps to improve diagnostic precision, but did not provide implementation details or timelines in the source.