ArticleInsights into imaging2022
Incidental findings on coronary computed tomography in women with selected reproductive disorders.
Article in Insights into imaging, 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, 0 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
13 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the prevalence of incidental findings (IFs) on coronary computed tomography (CCT) in women aged 45-55 years and previously diagnosed with reproductive disorders such as polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), premature ovarian insufficiency (POI) or preeclampsia (PE).
methodsA total of 486 middle-aged women with PCOS (n = 101), POI (n = 97) or a history of PE (n = 288) underwent a CCT as part of a prior prospective study. IFs were categorized by their significance (minor, moderate and major). Follow-up information was collected from patients' records. To investigate the impact of different field of views (FOVs), a subset of scans was analyzed in full FOV and small FOV.
resultsIn 96/486 (19.8%) women, one or more IFs were detected, of which 54/486 (11.1%) were classified as moderate/major and 48/486 (9.9%) required follow-up. A moderate/major IF was detected in 16/101 (15.9%) women with PCOS, 13/97 (13.4%) women with POI and 25/288 (8.7%) women with a history of PE. In 78 women with an IF detected in the full FOV, the IF was still visible in 60 (76.9%) women in the small FOV. In the full FOV, 46 women required follow-up, but using the small FOV this was reduced to 30 women.
conclusionUsing CCT as a cardiovascular disease screening tool in women with selected reproductive disorders increases the probability of detecting IFs that can cause anxiety and may generate extra costs, but can also reveal clinically relevant findings. Using a small FOV centered around the heart resulted in a lower prevalence of IFs and required less follow-up.
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.