ArticlePolish journal of radiology2022
The prevalence and clinical significance of incidental non-cardiac findings on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and unreported rates of these findings in official radiology reports.
Article in Polish journal of radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the prevalence and significance of incidental non-cardiac findings (NCFs) on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). We also aimed to assess the unreported rate and clinical significance of NCFs in official radiological reports. Material and methods: Consecutive cardiac MRI examinations of 400 patients were retrospectively analysed and MR images reviewed by 2 observers blinded to official radiology reports. NCFs were classified as insignificant, significant, and major. In patients with significant and major findings, NCFs were classified as previously known or unknown, based on clinical archive. Moreover, we investigated the clinical follow-up results of patients with major NCF. Results: Of 400 patients, 137 patients (34.3%) had a total of 175 NCFs. Fifty-nine NCFs were considered significant, and 23 were major. Patients with NCFs were significantly older than those without ( Conclusions: The frequency of significant and major NCFs increases with age. Although no statistical difference was found between official MRI reports and second consensus reading for the detection of major NCFs, extra-cardiac findings should be carefully investigated during assessment.
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.