ArticleMedicine2017
Cardiovascular findings on computed tomography in patients with unclear finding situation and trauma of unknown origin.
Article in Medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Incidental CT Findings in the Elderly with Low-Energy Falls: Prevalence and Implications.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Incidental cardiovascular findings are common and can be found in up to 70% of patients. Previously, several reports about incidental findings (IFs) on whole body computed tomography (CT) were published. However, no previous study investigated cardiovascular IFs in patients with unclear finding situation and trauma of unknown origin on whole body CT.The radiological database of 2 university hospitals was screened for patients with trauma of unknown origin and unclear finding situation investigated by whole body CT. The images were retrospectively analyzed by 2 radiologists in consensus. The findings were classified according to their clinical relevance. Clinically nonrelevant findings like valvular sclerosis, aortic sclerosis, or anatomic variants were excluded from this study. Moreover, the radiology reports were analyzed to assess initial reporting by the radiologist.Overall, we identified 60 patients with a mean age of 63 years. A total of 98 clinically relevant cardiovascular IFs (CRCIF) were identified in 60 (75%) patients (1.6 CRCIF per patient). The most prevalent finding was cardiomegaly in 23 patients, followed by coronary sclerosis in 21 patients and aortic ectasia in 11 patients; other findings were rarer. Sixty-one findings were reported (62.2%) and 37 were nonreported (37.8%). Thirty patients (50%) showed no traumatic event on whole body CT.CRCIFs are common in patients with unclear finding situation and trauma of unknown origin. Despite initial indication for trauma detection, the whole body CT should carefully be evaluated for CRCIF because of the high prevalence of clinically relevant findings. Notably, 37.76% of the findings were not reported by the radiologist.
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.