ArticleScientific reports2021
Extraspinal findings prevalence and clinical significance in 4250 lumbar spine MRI exams.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Potentially Overlooked Dangers: Prevalence and Clinical Relevance of Incidental Extraspinal Findings on Cervical Spine Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Retrospective Analysis of 2,286 Cases.Clinics in orthopedic surgery · 2026Article
- Article
- Diagnostic Value of an Additional Sequence (Large-Field Coronal Stir) in a Routine Lumbar Spine MR Imaging Protocol to Investigate Lumbar Radiculopathy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Readability of extraspinal organs on scout images of lumbar spine MRI according to different protocols.PloS one · 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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To assess extraspinal findings (ESFs) prevalence in lumbar spine MRI, including clinically significant findings using a systematic approach, and to determine their reporting rate. Lumbar spine MRI scans were retrospectively reviewed over 18 months by two radiologists. Reading discrepancies were resolved by consensus. ESFs were classified according to the involved system, clinical diagnosis, and clinical significance. The reporting rate was estimated by referring to the original report. There were 1509 ESFs in 1322/4250 patients with a substantial agreement between the two radiologists (kappa = 0.8). Almost half (621/1322) were in the 45-60 age group. Females represented 56.6% (748/1322). 74.2% (1120/1509) of the ESFs involved the urinary system among which 79.6% (892/1120) were renal cysts. Clinically significant findings represented 8.7% (131/1509) among which hydronephrosis represented 23% (30/131). First time detected malignant lesions represented 4.6% (6/131). ESFs reporting rate was 47.3%. 58.8% of the clinically significant ESFs were not reported. ESFs prevalence was 31.1%. The Urinary system was the most commonly involved. Most ESFs were benign warranting no further workup. However, clinically significant ESF were not infrequently detected. More than half of the clinically significant findings were not reported. A systematic review of MRI images is highly recommended to improve patient's outcome.
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.