Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30238172›Full record

ArticleEmergency radiology2019

Computed tomography for suspected pulmonary embolism results in a large number of non-significant incidental findings and follow-up investigations.

Omar Anjum, Helena Bleeker, Robert Ohle

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Emergency radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Low Incidence of Symptomatic Thrombotic Events in Adult Patients Hospitalized with Coronavirus 19: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis
    Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Omar AnjumDepartment of Undergraduate Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Helena BleekerDepartment of Undergraduate Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Robert OhleThe Department of Emergency Medicine, Health Science North Research Institute, Northern Ontario School of Medicine, Thunder Bay, ON, Canada. Robert.ohle@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8263-0556

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionComputed tomographic pulmonary angiograms (CTPAs) are often ordered to evaluate pulmonary embolism (PE) in the emergency department (ED). The increase use of CTPA has led to an increase in incidental findings, often of low clinical significance. Our objectives were to (1) assess the prevalence and clinical significance of incidental findings identified in patients evaluated with CTPAs for PE in the ED, (2) evaluate follow-up investigations for these incidental findings, and (3) assess the utility of routine chest X-rays done prior to CTPA.

methodsThis is a historical cohort study of adult patients, presenting to two tertiary care EDs from January-December 2015, evaluated with CTPA for possible PE. Two reviewers' extracted data from electronic CT records in a standardized fashion with inter-rater reliability reported using the kappa statistic. We measured the prevalence of PE and stratified non-PE findings according to alternative diagnoses and incidental findings. Data were reported as mean and standard deviation (SD). Univariate analyses were performed with t test for continuous variables.

resultsA total of 1708 studies were included (mean 62 years (SD 16.7), 56.9% female). PE was found in 233 (13.6%) patients. A total of 223 (13.1%) patients had an incidental finding, the majority of which included pulmonary nodules (n = 83, 37.2%) and adenopathy (n = 26, 11.6%). Of the incidental findings, 197 (88.3%) were non-significant and led to no definitive diagnosis of cancer. In patients who underwent both CTPA and chest X-ray, X-ray reports revealed the same diagnosis in 77% of PE-negative patients without missing a clinically significant incidental finding.

conclusionsIncidental findings are as common as a diagnosis of PE in patients undergoing CTPA. They are rarely clinically significant. Chest radiograph remains a reasonable initial investigation as it can aid in identifying alternative diagnoses especially in the setting of a low pre-test probability for PE.

Indexed as

Emergency Service, HospitalIncidental FindingsComputed Tomography AngiographyDiagnosis, DifferentialFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrevalencePulmonary EmbolismRadiography, ThoracicChest X-rayComputed tomographyIncidental findingsPulmonary embolism

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.