Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19687093›Full record

SynthesisBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2009

Incidental findings on brain magnetic resonance imaging: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Zoe Morris, William N Whiteley, W T Longstreth, Frank Weber, Yi-Chung Lee, Yoshito Tsushima, Hannah Alphs, Susanne C Ladd, Charles Warlow, Joanna M Wardlaw and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 311 papers, 17 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
311citing papers in PubMed, 17 pooled it
19.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

311 citing papers in PubMed, 17 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 779 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. SEOM-GEINO clinical guidelines for grade 2 gliomas (2023).Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2024
    Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Familial colloid cysts: not a chance occurrence.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2022
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Trial
  19. Review
  20. Article

251 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 8 institutions in 7 countries.

Zoe MorrisDivision of Clinical Neurosciences, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh.
William N Whiteley
W T Longstreth
Frank Weber
Yi-Chung Lee
Yoshito Tsushima
Hannah Alphs
Susanne C Ladd
Charles Warlow
Joanna M Wardlaw
Rustam Al-Shahi Salman
Western General Hospital · GBEssen University Hospital · DEGunma University Hospital · JPHarborview Medical Center · USImagerie et Cerveau · FRInstitute of Aviation Medicine · CZJohns Hopkins Hospital · USTaipei Veterans General Hospital · TW

Funding

Chief Scientist Office CAF/06/30Medical Research Council G0701120
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo quantify the prevalence of incidental findings on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain.

designSystematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. DATA SOURCES: Ovid Medline (1950 to May 2008), Embase (1980 to May 2008), and bibliographies of relevant articles. Review methods Two reviewers sought and assessed studies of people without neurological symptoms who underwent MRI of the brain with or without intravenous contrast for research purposes or for occupational, clinical, or commercial screening.

main outcome measuresOverall disease specific and age specific prevalence of incidental brain findings, calculated by meta-analysis of pooled proportions using DerSimonian-Laird weights in a random effects model.

resultsIn 16 studies, 135 of 19 559 people had neoplastic incidental brain findings (prevalence 0.70%, 95% confidence interval 0.47% to 0.98%), and prevalence increased with age (chi(2) for linear trend, P=0.003). In 15 studies, 375 of 15 559 people had non-neoplastic incidental brain findings (prevalence 2.0%, 1.1% to 3.1%, excluding white matter hyperintensities, silent infarcts, and microbleeds). The number of asymptomatic people needed to scan to detect any incidental brain finding was 37. The prevalence of incidental brain findings was higher in studies using high resolution MRI sequences than in those using standard resolution sequences (4.3% v 1.7%, P<0.001). The prevalence of neoplastic incidental brain findings increased with age.

conclusionsIncidental findings on brain MRI are common, prevalence increases with age, and detection is more likely using high resolution MRI sequences than standard resolution sequences. These findings deserve to be mentioned when obtaining informed consent for brain MRI in research and clinical practice but are not sufficient to justify screening healthy asymptomatic people.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAge DistributionBrain DiseasesChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansIncidental FindingsInfantMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID19687093
PMCPMC2728201
OpenAlexW2131896620

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.