ArticleWorld journal of radiology2015
Relevant incidental findings at abdominal multi-detector contrast-enhanced computed tomography: A collateral screening?
Article in World journal of radiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of disclosure of radiographic test results on quality of life among patients with hernias: a randomized controlled trial.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2024Trial
- Development of a deep learning model for detecting and measuring gallstones on computed tomography images.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- Automated detection of gallbladder stones using a deep learning algorithm on computed tomography scans.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- Incidental findings on MRI for the evaluation of endometriosis: prevalence and clinical significance.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- [Patient-centered, value-based management of incidental findings in radiology].Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2023Review
- [Incidental and "leave me alone" findings of abdominal organs-part 1 : Liver, gall ducts and pancreas].Der Radiologe · 2022Article
- Imaging features of adrenal masses.Insights into imaging · 2019Review
- Clinical impact of computed tomography in the emergency department in nontraumatic chest and abdominal conditions.Emergency radiology · 2018Article
- Overdiagnosis across medical disciplines: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2017Article
- Article
- Whole-body MRI in patients with lymphoma: collateral findings.La Radiologia medica · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo investigate the prevalence of relevant incidental findings (RIFs) detected during routine abdominal contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CeCT).
methodsWe retrospectively evaluated the reports of a consecutive series of abdominal CeCT studies performed between January and May 2013. For each report, patients' age and sex, admission as inpatient or outpatient, clinical suspicion as indicated by the requesting physician, availability of a previous abdominal examination, and name of the reporting radiologist were recorded. Based on the clinical suspicion, the presence and features of any RIFs (if needing additional workup) was noted.
resultsOne thousand forty abdominal CeCT were performed in 949 patients (528 males, mean age 66 ± 14 years). No significant difference was found between inpatients and outpatients age and sex distribution (P > 0.472). RIFs were found in 195/1040 (18.8%) CeCT [inpatients = 108/470 (23.0%); outpatients = 87/570 (15.2%); P = 0.002]. RIFs were found in 30/440 (6.8%) CeCT with a previous exam and in 165/600 (27.5%) without a previous exam (P < 0.001). Radiologists' distribution between inpatients or outpatients was significantly different (P < 0.001). RIFs prevalence increased with aging, except for a peak in 40-49 year group. Most involved organs were kidneys, gallbladder, and lungs.
conclusionA RIF is detected in 1/5 patients undergoing abdominal CeCT. Risk of overdiagnosis should be taken into account.
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.