ArticleInsights into imaging2026
Practices in reporting incidental findings in lung cancer screening by low-dose CT: a European Survey of Radiologists by SOLACE.
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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveLung cancer screening (LCS) is complicated by a high prevalence of incidental findings (IFs), defined as abnormalities detected on low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) of the chest that are outside the scope of LCS. Although the detection of some abnormalities might lead to the diagnosis of conditions of clinical relevance, LDCT protocols are not adequate for the characterisation of most IFs and thus, further investigations are usually necessary. Thus, the detection of such findings is perceived as a double-edged sword, and radiologists still widely disagree on which IFs should be reported. MATERIALS AND
methodsA survey was circulated amongst radiologists involved in LCS programmes across Europe to investigate their opinions regarding the reporting of IFs, based on their personal experiences and perspectives, as well as national regulations. The responses of 147 European radiologists were included in the final analysis.
resultsThe survey revealed a lack of standardised regulations and limited awareness among European radiologists regarding IFs reporting in LCS. LDCT is perceived as unreliable for evaluating solid organs outside the mediastinum, and mandatory reporting is supported only for clinically relevant findings.
conclusionWith radiologists still partly disagreeing on which IFs should be reported, international evidence-based guidelines around IFs reporting and management are highly awaited but challenging. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: This study critically highlights the lack of standardised regulations and consensus on IFs reporting in European LCS, underscoring the urgent need for harmonised, evidence-based guidelines to advance consistency and quality in clinical radiology practice. KEY POINT: European radiologists report a lack of standardised regulations and awareness regarding IFs in LCS. LDCT is widely perceived as unreliable for assessing solid organs outside the mediastinum, limiting support for mandatory reporting of extra-thoracic findings. International, evidence-based guidelines are urgently needed to harmonise IFs reporting and management in LCS across Europe.
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.