ArticleInsights into imaging2026
Classification of incidental findings in polytrauma computed tomography.
Article in Insights into imaging, 2026. 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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWhole-body computed tomography (WBCT) is the standard procedure for examining severely injured patients. In addition to trauma-caused pathologies, a high number of non-trauma-related pathologies, incidental findings (IFs) are found regularly but often underestimated in WBCT. A standardized image analysis and a classification of IFs regarding their clinical graduation is of paramount interest for both treatment concepts and outcomes. The present study is aimed at developing and validating a feasible classification system. We evaluated WBCT scans regarding IFs and classified the IFs into 5 degrees of severity. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe present retrospective study included 1475 polytrauma patients from two maximum care hospitals who underwent a WBCT scan. Medical reports and CT scans were then reviewed for IFs.
resultsThe 83.8% of patients had suffered trauma-related injuries, and in 83.9%, IFs were found. The patients' age and gender significantly influenced the number and severity of IFs. Older and female patients tended to have more IFs. IFs are not described more often in patients without trauma-related findings (15%) than in patients with traumatic injuries (6%). Based on an analysis of 476 literature sources, we classified 511 different IFs into 5 categories. Most of them fell into categories 1 (variant) and 2 (benign), but 24% fell into categories 3 (follow-up), 4 (needs clarification), and 5 (needs treatment), requiring monitoring, clarification, or immediate treatment.
conclusionDue to the high rate of IFs, standardized image analysis and IFs classification are of utmost importance for both the patients' further treatment and the healthcare system's refinancing of resources. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: IFs in polytrauma CT scans are common and, if not adequately addressed, can negatively impact patient outcomes-therefore, this 5-level classification standardizes interpretation and provides specific recommendations for further action, evaluation, or treatment. KEY POINTS: In polytrauma, IFs are as common as trauma-related findings. There is a need for standardized classification. For IFs in WBCT scans, we propose a classification into 5 categories, labeled as IF-RADS 1-5.
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.