ArticleThe British journal of radiology2017
Incidental findings in the skeletal musculature on computed tomography.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Off the wall: incidental paraspinal and pelvic muscle pathology on abdominopelvic imaging.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2024Review
- Shifting the Cancer Screening Paradigm: Developing a Multi-Biomarker Class Approach to Multi-Cancer Early Detection Testing.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to analyze intramuscular incidental findings identified on CT in a large patient cohort.
methodsIn the time period from 2010 to 2015, a total of 44,794 patients with several diagnoses were investigated by CT. Only those patients who underwent body CT including the neck, thorax, abdomen and pelvic regions after the i.v. application of a contrast medium were involved in the study. There were 4085 patients. On further analysis, only patients with intramuscular findings (IFs) incidentally detected on CT were included. Osseous or soft-tissue lesions with invasion into the musculature were excluded from the study. Patients with known or clinically suspicious muscle disorders were also excluded. Overall, 639 (15.64% of the 4085 analyzed cases) patients, 253 females and 386 males, with mean age 72.43 ± 12.02 years, were identified. Collected data were evaluated by means of descriptive statistics.
resultsIn the 639 patients, 917 IFs were identified. More often, several benign disorders were diagnosed (n = 803, 87.6%). There were hernias (33.5%), atrophy of different muscles (22%), lipomas (21%), intramuscular calcifications (8.7%), bursitis (1.2%) and intramuscular bleeding (1.1%). Malignant IFs (n = 114, 12.4%) included intramuscular metastases (11.9%) and lymphomas (0.6%). Most frequently, the identified IFs were localized in the abdominal wall musculature, paravertebral and gluteal muscles. In 657 cases (71.6% of all IFs), the identified muscle findings were not diagnosed by the radiologist who initially assessed the investigation.
conclusionCT can detect different incidental disorders within the skeletal musculature. Most of them were benign. However, malignant lesions can also occur. Therefore, skeletal muscles should be carefully evaluated on CT performed for other reasons. Advances in knowledge: IFs occur in 15.6% of CT investigations. Benign findings represent 87.6% and malignant lesions can be identified in 12.4%.
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.