SynthesisPloS one2012
Unrequested findings on cardiac computed tomography: looking beyond the heart.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical significance of incidental findings on coronary CT angiography: Insights from a randomized controlled trial.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2020Trial
- Non-cardiovascular findings on chest CT angiography in children with congenital heart disease: How important are they?BMC medical imaging · 2022Observational
- Extracardiac findings on coronary computed tomography angiography in patients without significant coronary artery disease.European radiology · 2019Article
- Incidental Non-cardiac Findings in Cardiovascular Imaging.Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine · 2018Review
- Computed tomography coronary angiography in patients without known coronary artery disease can demonstrate possible non-cardiovascular causes of non-acute retrosternal chest pain.Insights into imaging · 2018Article
- Incidental extra-cardiac findings onJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2017Article
- Prevalence of non-cardiovascular findings on CT angiography in children with congenital heart disease.Pediatric radiology · 2017Article
- Under-reporting of cardiovascular findings on chest CT.La Radiologia medica · 2016Article
- Two-year survival of patients screened for transcatheter aortic valve replacement with potentially malignant incidental findings in initial body computed tomography.European heart journal. Cardiovascular Imaging · 2015Observational
- Clinico-pathological analysis of renal cell carcinoma demonstrates decreasing tumour grade over a 17-year period.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine the prevalence of clinically relevant unrequested extra-cardiac imaging findings on cardiac Computed Tomography (CT) and explanatory factors thereof.
methodsA systematic review of studies drawn from online electronic databases followed by meta-analysis with meta-regression was performed. The prevalence of clinically relevant unrequested findings and potentially explanatory variables were extracted (proportion of smokers, mean age of patients, use of full FOV, proportion of men, years since publication).
resultsNineteen radiological studies comprising 12922 patients met the inclusion criteria. The pooled prevalence of clinically relevant unrequested findings was 13% (95% confidence interval 9-18, range: 3-39%). The large differences in prevalence observed were not explained by the predefined (potentially explanatory) variables.
conclusionsClinically relevant extra-cardiac findings are common in patients undergoing routine cardiac CT, and their prevalence differs substantially between studies. These differences may be due to unreported factors such as different definitions of clinical relevance and differences between populations. We present suggestions for basic reporting which may improve the interpretability and comparability of future research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.