ArticleNeuroradiology2022
Incidental findings on 3 T neuroimaging: cross-sectional observations from the population-based Rhineland Study.
Article in Neuroradiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Versatile MRI acquisition and processing protocol for population-based neuroimaging.Nature protocols · 2025Review
- Prevalence and symptoms of incidental meningiomas: a population-based study.Acta neurochirurgica · 2025Article
- MRI findings in patients with psychogenic non-epileptic seizures: Prevalence, distribution, and classification of the findings. A single tertiary epilepsy center experience.Epilepsia open · 2025Article
- Trends in the incidence of newly diagnosed cerebral cavernous malformations in Finland: a population-based retrospective cohort study.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2024Article
- Incidence, management, and outcome of incidental meningioma: what has happened in 10 years?Journal of neuro-oncology · 2023Article
- Predictors of future haemorrhage from cerebral cavernous malformations: a retrospective cohort study.Neurosurgical review · 2023Article
- Incidental findings on brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in adults: a review of imaging spectrum, clinical significance, and management.The British journal of radiology · 2023Review
- Strikingly low prevalence of pituitary incidentalomas in a teaching hospital in Uruguay.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2023Article
- An Overview of Pituitary Incidentalomas: Diagnosis, Clinical Features, and Management.Cancers · 2022Review
- Genome-wide associations of aortic distensibility suggest causality for aortic aneurysms and brain white matter hyperintensities.Nature communications · 2022Article
- Letter by Meinel et al. regarding article, "Incidental findings on 3 T neuroimaging: cross‑sectional observations from the population‑based Rhineland Study".Neuroradiology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDevelopment of best practices for dealing with incidental findings on neuroimaging requires insight in their frequency and clinical relevance.
methodsHere, we delineate prevalence estimates with 95% confidence intervals and clinical management of incidental findings, based on the first 3589 participants of the population-based Rhineland Study (age range 30-95 years) who underwent 3 Tesla structural neuroimaging (3D, 0.8 mm
resultsOf 3589 participants (mean age 55 ± 14 years, 2072 women), 867 had at least one possible incidental finding (24.2%). Most common were pituitary abnormalities (12.3%), arachnoid cysts (4.1%), developmental venous anomalies (2.5%), non-acute infarcts (1.8%), cavernomas (1.0%), and meningiomas (0.7%). Forty-six participants were informed about their findings, which was hitherto unknown in 40 of them (1.1%). Of these, in 19 participants (48%), a wait-and-see policy was applied and nine (23%) received treatment, while lesions in the remainder were benign, could not be confirmed, or the participant refused to inform us about their clinical diagnosis.
conclusionNearly one-quarter of participants had an incidental finding, but only 5% of those required referral, that mostly remained without direct clinical consequences.
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.