Incidental Findings of Computed Tomography Angiography in Patients Suspected to Pulmonary Embolism; a Brief Report.

Mustafa Korkut, Cihan Bedel, Kürsat Erman, Serkan Yüksel

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Archives of academic emergency medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

How to Combat Over-Testing for Patients Suspected of Pulmonary Embolism: A Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
Review

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

4 authors.

Mustafa KorkutDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Health Science University, Antalya Training and Research Hospital, Antalya, Turkey.

Cihan BedelDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Health Science University, Antalya Training and Research Hospital, Antalya, Turkey.

Kürsat ErmanDepartment of Radiology, Akdeniz University Faculty of Medicine, Antalya, Turkey.

Serkan YükselDepartment of Radiology, Health Science University, Antalya Training and Research Hospital, Antalya, Turkey.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionComputed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) scans are increasingly used in emergency department (ED). Therefore, the observation of incidental findings (IFs) has also increased. This study aimed to evaluate the frequency of IFs in patients who underwent CTPA.

methodsAll consecutive patients that underwent CTPA scanning for pulmonary embolism (PE) rule out between January 2017 and June 2018 were analysed. Incidental findings were divided into and reported in three categories: group 1 potentially life-threatening, group 2 required follow up, and group 3 with limited clinical significance.

results151 cases with the mean age of 61.2 ± 17.6 years were studied (54.3% female). PE was documented in 77 cases (50.9%). 448 IFs were detected (3 IFs were found per patient). 60 (13.3%) IFs were classified as group 1, 180 (40.1%) as group 2, and 208 (46.6%) as group 3. Cardiomegaly was the most frequent finding in group 1 (n=32), followed by aortic aneurysm (n=13). In group 2, pleural effusion (n=58) and pneumonia (n=36) were the most frequent incidental findings. Lung structure changes (n=92) and thoracic bone related findings (n=43) were the most common IFs observed in group 3.

conclusionIFs were detected in the majority of patients that underwent CTPA. Most of these findings do not require follow-up or treatment. However, more than 50% of cases may require further diagnostic evaluation (40.1%) or immediate treatment (13.3%).

Indexed as

emergenciesincidental findingsPulmonary embolismtomography

Identifiers

PMID31875214

PMCPMC6905423

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.