Doctors who perform thyroid biopsies and treatments need proper training to do their jobs well. Researchers looked at 10 different studies about how to train doctors for these procedures. They found that the best training programs use a mix of classroom learning, practice on fake models, and real experience with patients under supervision. When doctors get this kind of complete training, they become more confident, work faster, and get better results for their patients. This research shows that combining different types of learning—not just one method—helps doctors master these important procedures.

The Quick Take

  • What they studied: How different training methods help doctors learn to safely perform thyroid biopsies (taking tiny samples of thyroid tissue) and ablation procedures (using heat to shrink thyroid nodules)
  • Who participated: The review examined 10 published studies about training programs. Nine studies focused on biopsy training, and one studied a heat-based treatment called radiofrequency ablation. The studies included various types of medical trainees and practicing doctors
  • Key finding: Training programs that combined classroom instruction, practice on fake models (like 3D-printed replicas or food items), and supervised real-patient experience produced the best results. Doctors who completed these multi-method programs showed improved accuracy, faster procedure times, and better patient outcomes
  • What it means for you: If you need a thyroid biopsy or ablation procedure, it’s reassuring to know that well-trained doctors using structured training programs are more likely to perform your procedure correctly and efficiently. However, this research focuses on training methods rather than patient outcomes directly, so discuss your specific situation with your doctor

The Research Details

Researchers conducted a systematic review, which means they searched five major medical databases for all studies published between 2000 and April 2025 about training programs for thyroid procedures. Two independent reviewers carefully examined each study to decide if it met the criteria for inclusion. They extracted detailed information about how the training was structured, what methods were used, and what results were reported.

The training methods studied included different combinations of approaches: some programs used classroom-style lectures, most included hands-on practice using simulation models (ranging from simple food-based models to complex 3D-printed replicas), some provided supervised experience with actual patients, and many used a combination of all these methods. The researchers looked at what outcomes were measured, including how confident doctors felt, how accurate they were, and ultimately how well patients did after the procedures.

This type of review is valuable because it brings together findings from multiple studies to identify patterns and best practices. Rather than relying on a single study, researchers can see what approaches consistently work across different settings and populations.

Understanding how to best train doctors in technical procedures is crucial for patient safety and quality of care. Thyroid biopsies and ablations are common procedures that require precision and skill. By identifying which training approaches work best, medical schools and hospitals can design better training programs. This helps ensure that doctors performing these procedures have adequate preparation before working with real patients, reducing errors and improving outcomes.

All 10 studies included in this review were rated as having moderate to high risk of bias, which means there were some limitations in how they were conducted. This is important to know because it suggests the findings should be viewed as helpful guidance rather than definitive proof. The studies varied in their design, the number of participants, and how they measured success, which makes it harder to draw firm conclusions. However, the consistent patterns across multiple studies—showing that multi-method training works better—suggests these findings are likely reliable despite the limitations

What the Results Show

The research identified four main components that appeared in successful training programs: classroom-style teaching (used in 5 studies), hands-on simulation practice (used in 9 studies), supervised experience with real patients (used in 4 studies), and combined multi-method approaches (used in 7 studies). The simulation models varied widely in sophistication, from simple food-based models to advanced 3D-printed replicas that closely mimicked real thyroid tissue.

When doctors completed these training programs, they showed improvements at three different levels. First, they reported feeling more confident and found the training realistic (these are called “reaction outcomes”). Second, they performed better on tests and practice scenarios, showing improved accuracy, faster procedure times, and better knowledge (“learning outcomes”). Third, and most importantly, their actual patient care improved—they obtained better tissue samples, correctly identified more cancers, and reduced wait times for procedures (“clinical outcomes”).

For the one study examining radiofrequency ablation (a heat-based treatment for thyroid nodules), doctors who received simulation-based training followed by supervised clinical experience achieved impressive results: nodules shrank by an average of 82% after 12 months of treatment. This substantial improvement suggests that proper training translates directly to better patient outcomes.

The research highlighted that no single training method worked best on its own. Programs that combined multiple approaches—mixing classroom learning, simulation practice, and real patient experience—consistently outperformed programs using just one or two methods. The complexity of simulation models didn’t always matter as much as having some form of hands-on practice. Even simple models helped doctors learn, though more realistic models appeared to provide additional benefits. The studies also showed that training benefits persisted over time, with doctors maintaining improved skills and continuing to achieve good patient outcomes months after completing their training

This systematic review builds on previous research showing that simulation-based training improves medical skills across many specialties. The findings align with established principles of medical education that emphasize the importance of deliberate practice and graduated responsibility (starting with simulations, then supervised real-world experience). However, this review is notable because it specifically focuses on thyroid procedures and demonstrates that these general principles apply well to this specialized area. The research also highlights that thyroid procedure training has been relatively understudied compared to other medical procedures, suggesting this is an important area for future research

Several important limitations should be considered. First, all included studies had moderate to high risk of bias, meaning the quality of evidence is not as strong as it could be. Second, the studies were quite different from each other in design and methods, making it difficult to directly compare results. Third, most studies were small and conducted in specialized centers, so results may not apply everywhere. Fourth, nine of the ten studies focused on biopsy training while only one examined ablation, so conclusions about ablation are based on very limited evidence. Finally, the review couldn’t determine the ideal length, intensity, or specific components of training programs because studies varied too much in these aspects

The Bottom Line

Based on this research, medical training programs should incorporate multi-method approaches combining classroom instruction, simulation practice, and supervised real-patient experience for thyroid procedures. Hospitals and training centers should invest in simulation equipment and structured training curricula. For patients: if you’re having a thyroid procedure, it’s reasonable to ask whether your doctor has completed formal training in the specific procedure you need. Confidence level: Moderate—the evidence supports these recommendations, but the studies had some limitations

This research is most relevant to: medical schools and residency programs designing thyroid procedure training; hospitals and endocrinology centers developing training protocols; doctors and trainees learning these procedures; and patients undergoing thyroid biopsies or ablations who want assurance their doctors are well-trained. This research is less directly relevant to patients seeking general thyroid health information, though it supports the importance of choosing experienced providers

Doctors typically show improved confidence and performance within weeks of completing a structured training program. Clinical benefits—such as better biopsy samples and improved patient outcomes—appear within the first few months of applying their training. The one ablation study showed significant nodule shrinkage at 12 months, suggesting benefits continue over the longer term

Want to Apply This Research?

  • If you’re a healthcare provider using a medical education app, track completion of multi-modal training modules: record classroom sessions attended, simulation practice hours completed, and supervised procedures performed. Monitor your accuracy metrics and procedure times to see improvement over time
  • For healthcare providers: commit to completing a structured, multi-method training program rather than relying on a single learning approach. For patients: when scheduling a thyroid procedure, ask your provider about their training background and whether they’ve completed formal training programs in that specific procedure
  • Healthcare providers should regularly review their procedure outcomes (biopsy adequacy rates, diagnostic accuracy, procedure times) and compare them to benchmarks. Participate in ongoing education and periodic skills refresher training. Patients can monitor their own outcomes by tracking symptom improvement and follow-up test results after procedures

This research examines training methods for healthcare providers, not direct patient treatment. If you are a patient considering a thyroid biopsy or ablation procedure, discuss your specific situation, risks, and benefits with your qualified healthcare provider. This information should not replace professional medical advice. The findings suggest that well-trained doctors using structured training programs may provide better care, but individual results vary. Always consult with your doctor about your thyroid health and treatment options.