ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2019
Comparison of extracolonic findings and clinical outcomes in a screening and diagnostic CT colonography population.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Quantification and significance of extraprostatic findings on prostate MRI: a retrospective analysis and three-tier classification.Insights into imaging · 2023Article
- EXTRACOLONIC FINDINGS-IDENTIFICATION AT LOW-DOSE CTC.Radiation protection dosimetry · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo compare the distribution of extracolonic findings and clinical outcomes between screening and diagnostic CT colonography (CTC) populations.
methods388 consecutive patients (369 men, 19 women; mean ± SD age 67.8 ± 10 years) who underwent first-time CTC (4/2011-4/2017) at a Veteran's Affairs Medical Center were divided into screening (asymptomatic) or diagnostic (symptomatic) cohorts based on CTC indication. CTC reporting and data system E-scores for extracolonic findings were retrospectively assigned based on prospective CTC radiologic reports. Multinomial logistic regression was used to examine the association between E-scores and CTC indication. Electronic medical records of all patients with E3 or E4 scores were reviewed (median follow-up 2.8 years) to determine clinical outcomes.
results68% (262/388) underwent screening and 32% (126/388) diagnostic CTC. 7.2% (28/388) had extracolonic findings considered potentially significant (E4), 4.4% (17/388) had indeterminate but likely unimportant findings (E3), and 88.4% (347/388) had normal or unimportant findings (E1 or E2). E-scores were not significantly different between screening and diagnostic CTC when adjusted for age, gender, and prior imaging (p = 0.44). 4.6% (12/262) of patients with E3/E4 findings in the screening cohort demonstrated clinically significant outcomes, compared with 4.0% (5/126) in the diagnostic cohort, including a total of three extracolonic malignancies (0.8%) and three abdominal aortic aneurysms (0.8%). 4.6% (18/388) underwent follow-up imaging studies to confirm a benign outcome after detection of a category E3/E4 finding.
conclusionsThe distribution of extracolonic findings and clinical outcomes were not statistically significantly different between screening and diagnostic CTC populations.
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.