ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2025
Incidental diagnosis and reporting rate of abdominal aortic aneurysms on lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Modulation of CCR2/CCL2 molecular axis in the expansion and rupture of abdominal aortic aneurysms.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite screening recommendations, many abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) are incidentally imaged during various imaging studies but are frequently missed, especially when the imaging procedure is not specifically targeted to the aorta. The aims of this study were to conduct a retrospective analysis to assess the incidence of AAAs as incidental findings on lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and to evaluate the detection rate of these findings reported by radiologists. Methods: After ethics committee approval, this retrospective study included patients aged 55 years or older who underwent for any indication a lumbar spine 1.5-T MRI between January 2017 and June 2023 at the Unit of Radiology of the IRCCS (Research Hospital) Policlinico San Donato. Patients with a known history of AAA or prior AAA repair were excluded. The maximal aortic diameter of the abdominal aorta was measured on axial and sagittal T2-weighted images. A threshold of ≥30 mm was adopted to define the presence of an AAA. The Mann-Whitney Results: Out of 1,922 patients, 84 [4.4%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.5-5.3%] had an abdominal aorta diameter ≥30 mm, qualifying as AAAs. Only 26 (31.0%, 95% CI: 21.1-40.8%) of these AAAs were reported by radiologists. A significant difference in detection rates between sexes was observed (P<0.001), with males showing higher prevalence (8.4%, 95% CI: 6.4-10.3%) compared to females (1.7%, 95% CI: 0.9-2.4%). A significant difference was found also between the median maximal aortic diameter of 38 mm [interquartile range (IQR), 33-43 mm] for reported AAAs and 32 mm (IQR, 30-35 mm) for not reported AAAs (P=0.003). Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated good agreement between axial and sagittal measurements, showing also a strong correlation (ρ=0.93, P<0.001). Age correlated with the highest value between axial and sagittal measurements of AAAs (ρ=0.23, P<0.001) and detection rates (ρ=0.01, P<0.001), though the correlation was very weak. Conclusions: This study identified a substantial incidence of AAAs on lumbar spine MRI scans, with a significant proportion of these cases going unreported by radiologists. Age and male sex were key factors influencing AAA prevalence, underscoring the need for targeted screening and management strategies that account for demographic differences.
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.