specific system of their own, rendering the reproducibility of their results difficult. This group reports an intricate system that both include a nondiagnostic and a suboptimal category that, when combined, also reach a 40% rate on repeat FNA. 4 The high percentages of nonadequate cytologies after the 3-month period, when compared to our institute data, can be a possible explanation for the lack of impact of FNA timing in the diagnostic yield in these two publications. Considering that excessive blood is one of the main reasons contributing to nondiagnostic cytopathological results, a previous recent FNA could render nodules more haemorrhagic, potentially explaining our results. The main limitation of our work is the low number of patients repeating the FNA before a 3-month period has elapsed. This happens because we have been avoiding such early repeat FNAs after perceiving the higher number of unsatisfactory results retrieved in this setting.In conclusion, our findings show that timing for FNAs repetition may have an impact on their diagnostic yield, and we propose that a 3-month waiting period should be considered before undergoing a second FNA to clarify a previous nondiagnostic result. The authors agree that future larger studies should continue to address this issue in order to reach robust and reproducible evidence that can be included in upcoming guidelines.