ArticleEuropean radiology2018
Extracardiac findings at cardiac MR imaging: a single-centre retrospective study over 14 years.
Article in European radiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinically Relevant Extracardiac Findings at Cardiac Imaging: Insights from the European MR/CT Registry.Radiology. Cardiothoracic imaging · 2024Article
- Extracardiac Findings on Cardiac Magnetic Resonance: A Children's Hospital Experience.Pediatric cardiology · 2023Article
- Unexpected extracardiac findings in cardiac computed tomography from neonates to young adults.Pediatric radiology · 2023Review
- Incidence and Outcome of Unexpected Non-Cardiac Abnormality on Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Report from Northeastern Thailand.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2021Article
- Incidental Non-cardiac Findings in Cardiovascular Imaging.Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine the prevalence and significance of extracardiac findings (ECF) in a large set of cardiac magnetic resonance (MR) imaging examinations.
methodsThe institutional review board (IRB) of the Charité approved this retrospective, single-centre study. A total of 4376 cardiac MR imaging reports of 3553 patients (age 37.4 ± 20 years, 60.8 % male) examined from 2000 to 2014 were included. Findings with a recommendation for follow-up were considered "major ECF". To analyse the association of indication, age and gender with ECF, Poisson regression and computed incidence rate ratios (IRR) were evaluated.
resultsThe overall prevalence of ECF was 34% (95% confidence interval [CI] 32.5-35.6%). Major ECF were present in 3.4% (95% CI 2.9-4.1%) while findings that changed patient management were found in 0.9% (95% CI 0.7-1.3%). In the cases of congenital heart disease, ECF prevalence was higher compared to myocarditis (IRR, 6.0; 95% CI 5.1-7.1%; p < 0.001), while the prevalence of major ECF was lower (IRR, 0.2; 95% CI 0.02-0.51%; p < 0.05). Older patient age was associated with more nonvascular ECF (p < 0.001). Female patients had the same probability of having an ECF as male patients (IRR, 1.04; 95% CI 0.95-1.1%; p = 0.43).
conclusionECF in cardiac MR imaging are present in about every third patient while relevant ECF that change patient management can be found in about one out of 100 patients. Our data suggest that it is important to involve well-trained radiologists in reading cardiac MR images, which often reveal ECF if congenital heart disease is the clinical indication. KEY POINTS: • Extracardiac findings are present in about every third patient. • Relevant ECF changing patient management are found in one out of 100 findings. • Chance of ECF is high in patients with CHD and vascular indications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29713779What 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.