ArticleCureus2024
Incidental Computed Tomography Findings Among Traumatized Adults: A One-Year Analysis at a Trauma Center.
Article in Cureus, 2024. 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.
- Report-Documented Frequency and Spectrum of Incidental Findings on Emergency Abdominopelvic Computed Tomography: A Retrospective Clinical Data Study from Saudi Arabia.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A novel face-level blast mechanism: CT findings of neuro-ocular injury from a mass-casualty event.BMC medical imaging · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Computed tomography (CT) for patients with trauma represents a widely accepted diagnostic method. Non-trauma-related incidentalomas or incidental findings are commonly depicted based on CT examination. Our study aimed to assess the frequency of incidental findings on CT scans among traumatized adult patients during one year at a trauma center. Methods We performed a retrospective case review of all adult patients triaged at the King Abdullah Medical Complex trauma service in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, between 31 May 2022 and 30 May 2023. Patients under the age of 18 were excluded from the study. Patients who could not complete radiographic studies due to deterioration in condition, patients with missing CT scan reports, and transfer patients who had CT scans done at outside facilities were excluded. Demographic data, including age, sex, type of trauma, and type of CT, were recorded. All CT studies were reviewed for incidental findings. Results A total of 106 incidental findings were discovered in 99 patients. The rate of incidental findings for one year was 1.87%. The average age was 41.19 ± 17.90 years, with 73 (73.7%) male and 26 (26.3%) female patients. In trauma classifications, road traffic accidents were the most common (59.60%), followed by falls (33.33%), penetrating trauma (3.03%), and others. A high number of scans for the whole body (56.57%); face, brain, and cervix (13.13%); chest and abdomen/pelvis (11%); and spine (5.05%) had incidental findings. Genitourinary-related incidental findings were observed in 27.36% of patients, followed by craniospinal (16.98%), pulmonary (12.26%), hepatobiliary (9.43%), endocrine (9.43%), and musculoskeletal (5.66%). Conclusion In trauma centers, incidental findings are frequently discovered during CT imaging. In contrast, our center has a lower incidental finding rate. A whole-body CT scan yielded more incident findings than a selective one. The incidental findings are prevalent in the genitourinary system and higher in young male patients. It is important to properly document, communicate, and follow up on these incidental discoveries.
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.