ArticleThe British journal of radiology2026
Incidental pulmonary embolism and the value of CT pulmonary angiography follow-up versus expert review.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesEvaluate the prevalence of true-positive and false-positive incidental pulmonary embolism (iPE) diagnoses and the impact of expert review on diagnostic accuracy.
methodsThis single-center retrospective study included consecutive contrast-enhanced thoracic CT examinations without dedicated PE protocols which reported iPE over an 18-month period (2022-24). Electronic health records were reviewed to identify requests to confirm PE based on previous non-dedicated studies. Studies identifying iPE were graded from 1 (most certain) to 5 by original report diagnostic certainty and compared between PE-positive and PE-negative subgroups using Fisher's exact test. Identified imaging received retrospective expert review to calculate expert agreement with CTPA, where CTPA had been performed, using Cohen's kappa.
resultsOf 25 214 CT examinations, 260 (1%) reported iPE (mean age 73 ± 12 years; 51% women). Of these, 25% (n = 65/260) underwent confirmatory CTPA. Patients receiving CTPA had lower initial iPE diagnostic certainty (median 3 versus 1, P < .01) and 52% (n = 34/65) were PE-positive on CTPA. Patients with false-positive diagnoses had reduced diagnostic certainty on non-dedicated studies compared to those with a true-positive diagnosis (median 3 versus 2, P < .001). Agreement between the expert review of the iPE scan and the ground-truth CTPA diagnosis had κ of 0.96.
conclusionsExpert review could be an effective tool to reduce CTPA requirement in cases of intermediate (grade 3) iPE diagnostic certainty. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Low-certainty incidental pulmonary embolism diagnoses on initial non-dedicated CT are more likely to be false-positives according to CTPA findings or expert thoracic radiologist review. Expert review of initial CT may therefore reduce excessive imaging and avoid treating false-positive cases.
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.