Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30467245›Full record

SynthesisBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2018

Potentially serious incidental findings on brain and body magnetic resonance imaging of apparently asymptomatic adults: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Lorna M Gibson, Laura Paul, Francesca M Chappell, Malcolm Macleod, William N Whiteley, Rustam Al-Shahi Salman, Joanna M Wardlaw, Cathie L M Sudlow

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
7.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 80 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Incidental findings from cone-beam computed tomography in children and adolescents: a systematic review.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Returning Incidental Research Findings FromArthritis care & research · 2024
    Article
  13. Applying ONCO-RADS to whole-body MRI cancer screening in a retrospective cohort of asymptomatic individuals.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2024
    Article
  14. Brain imaging with portable low-field MRI.Nature reviews bioengineering · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lorna M GibsonUsher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh BioQuarter, Edinburgh EH16 4UX, UK.
Laura PaulDepartment of Clinical Radiology, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, UK.
Francesca M ChappellCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Malcolm MacleodCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
William N WhiteleyCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Rustam Al-Shahi SalmanCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Joanna M WardlawCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Cathie L M SudlowUsher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh BioQuarter, Edinburgh EH16 4UX, UK cathie.sudlow@ed.ac.uk.
University of Edinburgh · GBGlasgow Royal Infirmary · GB

Funding

Chief Scientist Office SCAF/17/01Medical Research Council G1002605Medical Research Council G108/613Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo determine prevalence and types of potentially serious incidental findings on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in apparently asymptomatic adults, describe factors associated with potentially serious incidental findings, and summarise information on follow-up and final diagnoses.

designSystematic review and meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES: Citation searches of relevant articles and authors' files in Medline and Embase (from inception to 25 April 2017). REVIEW

methodsEligible studies included prevalence and types of incidental findings detected among apparently asymptomatic adults undergoing MRI of the brain, thorax, abdomen, or brain and body. Data on study population and methods, prevalence and types of incidental findings, and final diagnoses were extracted. Pooled prevalence was estimated by random effects meta-analysis, and heterogeneity by τ

main outcome measuresPrevalence of potentially serious incidental findings on MRI of the brain, thorax, abdomen, and brain and body.

resultsOf 5905 retrieved studies, 32 (0.5%) met the inclusion criteria (n=27 643 participants). Pooled prevalence of potentially serious incidental findings was 3.9% (95% confidence interval 0.4% to 27.1%) on brain and body MRI, 1.4% (1.0% to 2.1%) on brain MRI, 1.3% (0.2% to 8.1%) on thoracic MRI, and 1.9% (0.3% to 12.0%) on abdominal MRI. Pooled prevalence rose after including incidental findings of uncertain potential seriousness (12.8% (3.9% to 34.3%), 1.7% (1.1% to 2.6%), 3.0% (0.8% to 11.3%), and 4.5% (1.5% to 12.9%), respectively). There was generally substantial heterogeneity among included studies. About half the potentially serious incidental findings were suspected malignancies (brain, 0.6% (95% confidence interval 0.4% to 0.9%); thorax, 0.6% (0.1% to 3.1%); abdomen, 1.3% (0.2% to 9.3%); brain and body, 2.3% (0.3% to 15.4%)). There were few informative data on potential sources of between-study variation or factors associated with potentially serious incidental findings. Limited data suggested that relatively few potentially serious incidental findings had serious final diagnoses (48/234, 20.5%).

conclusionsA substantial proportion of apparently asymptomatic adults will have potentially serious incidental findings on MRI, but little is known of their health consequences. Systematic, long term follow-up studies are needed to better inform on these consequences and the implications for policies on feedback of potentially serious incidental findings. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Prospero CRD42016029472.

Indexed as

Incidental FindingsMagnetic Resonance ImagingAbdomenBrainHumansPrevalenceThorax

Identifiers

PMID30467245
PMCPMC6249611
OpenAlexW2900516641

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.