ArticleMedicine2020
The undiagnosed potential clinically significant incidental findings of neck CTA: A large retrospective single-center study.
Article in Medicine, 2020. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Delays in Malignant Neck Mass Diagnosis: Missed Opportunities in Clinical Decision-Making.The Permanente journal · 2026Article
- Thrombolysis of incidental pulmonary embolism in a stroke patient.Radiology case reports · 2024Article
- Prevalence and Clinical Implications of Incidental Aortic Arch Abnormalities on Contrast-Enhanced Neck MR Angiography: A Single-Center Experience.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
- Apical pulmonary lesions suspected of malignancy visible on neck CT angiography performed for acute stroke: Prevalence, treatment, and clinical implications - the PLEURA study.European stroke journal · 2023Review
- Anatomical features of the occipital artery on CTA and differences between patients with/without stenosis and occlusion of the internal carotid artery.Medicine internationalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To assess the prevalence and missed reporting rate of potential clinically-significant incidental findings (IFs) in the neck CTA scans.All consecutive patients undergoing neck CTA imaging, from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2018, were retrospectively evaluated by a radiologist for the presence of incidental findings in the upper chest, lower head and neck regions. These incidental findings were subsequently classified into 3 categories in terms of clinical significance: Type I, highly significant, Type II, moderately significant; and Type III, mildly or not significant. Type I and Type II IFs were determined as potential clinically significant ones and were retrospectively analyzed by another 2 radiologists in consensus. The undiagnosed findings were designated as those that were not reported by the initial radiologists. The differences in the rate of unreported potential clinically significant IFs were compared between the chest group and head or neck group.A total of 376 potential clinically significant IFs were detected in 1,698 (91.19%) patients, of which 175 IFs were classified as highly significant findings (Type I), and 201 (53.46%) as moderately significant findings (Type II). The most common potential clinically significant findings included thyroid nodules (n = 88, 23.40%), pulmonary nodules (n = 56, 14.89%), sinus disease (n = 39, 10.37%), intracranial or cervical artery aneurysms (n = 30, 7.98%), enlarged lymph nodes (n = 24, 6.38%), and pulmonary embolism (n = 19, 5.05%). In addition, 184 (48.94%) of them were not mentioned in the initial report. The highest incidence of missed potential clinical findings were pulmonary embolism and pathologic fractures and erosions (100% for both). The unreported rate of the chest group was significantly higher than that of the head or neck one, regardless of Type I, Type II or all potential clinically significant IFs (χ = 32.151, χ = 31.211, χ = 65.286, respectively; P < .001 for all).Important clinically significant incidental findings are commonly found in a proportion of patients undergoing neck CTA, in which nearly half of these patients have had potential clinically significant IFs not diagnosed in the initial report. Therefore, radiologists should beware of the importance of and the necessity to identify incidental findings in neck CTA scans.
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.