ArticleBJR open2022
Radiologist opinions regarding reporting incidental coronary and cardiac calcification on thoracic CT.
Article in BJR open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Coronary artery calcium score-emerging role for opportunistic screening on thoracic CT and novel applications.The British journal of radiology · 2026Review
- CT in Suspected Acute Aortic Syndrome: An Opportunity for Improving Cardiovascular Outcomes?Radiology. Cardiothoracic imaging · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives: Coronary and cardiac calcification are frequent incidental findings on non-gated thoracic computed tomography (CT). However, radiologist opinions and practices regarding the reporting of incidental calcification are poorly understood. Methods: UK radiologists were invited to complete this online survey, organised by the British Society of Cardiovascular Imaging (BSCI). Questions included anonymous information on subspecialty, level of training and reporting practices for incidental coronary artery, aortic valve, mitral and thoracic aorta calcification. Results: The survey was completed by 200 respondents: 10% trainees and 90% consultants. Calcification was not reported by 11% for the coronary arteries, 22% for the aortic valve, 35% for the mitral valve and 37% for the thoracic aorta. Those who did not subspecialise in cardiac imaging were less likely to report coronary artery calcification ( Conclusion: Incidental coronary artery, valvular and aorta calcification are frequently not reported on thoracic CT and there are differences in reporting practices based on subspeciality. Advances in knowledge: On routine thoracic CT, 11% of radiologists do not report coronary artery calcification. Radiologist reporting practices vary depending on subspeciality but not level of training.
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.