Observational studyMedicine2017
Renal incidental findings on computed tomography: Frequency and distribution in a large non selected cohort.
Observational study in Medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of multiparametric MRI clear cell likelihood scores for classification of small renal masses.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Pooled it
- Diagnostic performance of the Bosniak classification, version 2019 for cystic renal masses: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Pooled it
- Assessment of Diagnostic Yield of Cystoscopy and Computed Tomographic Urography for Urinary Tract Cancers in Patients Evaluated for Microhematuria: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.JAMA network open · 2021Pooled it
- Improving Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma Diagnosis: Modified CT Algorithms with Simplified Heterogeneity Scoring.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Combined radiological approach for characterization of solid renal masses: a proposed strategy for integrating the RENAL nephrometry score into the clear cell likelihood score.BMC medical imaging · 2026Article
- Evaluation, Optimization, and Validation of a Multiparametric CT Algorithm for Solid Renal Masses: CT-Score Version 2.0.Radiology. Imaging cancer · 2026Article
- Is there enough evidence supporting the clinical adoption of clear cell likelihood score (ccLS)? An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.Insights into imaging · 2024Article
- Evaluation of a multiparametric renal CT algorithm for diagnosis of clear-cell renal cell carcinoma among small (≤ 4 cm) solid renal masses.European radiology · 2024Article
- TNM stage in the Nordic Cancer Registries 2004-2016: Registration and availability.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 2024Article
- Do pseudoxanthoma elasticum patients have higher prevalence of kidney stones on computed tomography compared to hospital controls?Clinical and experimental nephrology · 2024Article
- Deep-learning-based ensemble method for fully automated detection of renal masses on magnetic resonance images.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2023Article
- Deep learning techniques for imaging diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma: current and emerging trends.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Review
- Multicenter Evaluation of Multiparametric MRI Clear Cell Likelihood Scores in Solid Indeterminate Small Renal Masses.Radiology · 2022Article
- Automated classification of solid renal masses on contrast-enhanced computed tomography images using convolutional neural network with decision fusion.European radiology · 2020Article
- The value of surveying the kidneys during pelvic ultrasound examinations.Australasian journal of ultrasound in medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Renal incidental findings (IFs) are common. However, previous reports investigated renal IFs were limited to patient selection. The purpose of this study was to estimate the prevalence and distribution of all renal IFs on computed tomography (CT) in a large patient collective.All patients, who underwent CT investigations of the abdominal region at our institution in the time period between January 2006 and February 2014 were included in this study. Inclusion criteria were as follows: no previous history of renal diseases and well image quality. Patients with known kidney disorders were excluded from the study. Overall, 7365 patients meet the inclusion criteria were identified. There were 2924 (39.7%) women and 4441 men (60.3%) with a mean age of 59.8 ± 16.7 years. All CTs were retrospectively analyzed in consensus by 2 radiologists. Collected data were evaluated by means of descriptive statistics.Overall, 2756 patients (37.42% of all included patients) showed 3425 different renal IFs (1.24 findings per patient). Of all renal IFs, 123 (3.6%) findings were clinically relevant, 259 (7.6%) were categorized as possibly clinically relevant, and 3043 (88.8%) were clinically non relevant.Different renal IFs can be detected on CT. The present study provides a real prevalence and proportion of them in daily clinical routine. Kidneys should be thoroughly evaluated because of the fact that incidental renal findings occur frequently.
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.