The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Prevalence of Clinically Relevant Incidental Findings on Chest Computed Tomographic Angiograms Ordered to Diagnose Pulmonary Embolism
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chest computed tomographic angiograms (CTAs) are frequently ordered for evaluation of suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) in the emergency department, but non-PE findings are often noted. Our objective was to determine the prevalence and management implications of incidental findings on chest CTAs ordered to assess for PE. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, we reviewed 589 pulmonary CTAs that were ordered in the emergency department of a tertiary care hospital. We measured the prevalence of PE and placed other findings into the following 3 categories: (1) findings that provided potential alternative explanations for acute symptoms, (2) incidental findings that required clinical or radiologic follow-up, and (3) other findings that required less urgent or no follow-up. We reviewed all newly diagnosed pulmonary nodules and significant thoracic adenopathy and determined standard recommended clinical follow-up. RESULTS: Pulmonary embolism was found in 55 of 589 CTAs (9%). A total of 195 CTAs (33%) had findings that supported alternative diagnoses. A total of 141 patients (24%) had a new incidental finding that required diagnostic follow-up, including 73 patients (13%) with a new pulmonary nodule and 51 patients (9%) with new adenopathy. Using current clinical guidelines, follow-up computed tomography or another procedure would be recommended for 96% of patients with new incidental pulmonary nodules. CONCLUSIONS: The CTAs that are ordered in the emergency department are more than twice as likely to find an incidental pulmonary nodule or adenopathy than a PE. Systematic approaches should be developed to help primary care physicians contend with a growing number of clinically relevant incidental radiologic findings.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Anxiety, fear of cancer, and perceived risk of cancer following lung cancer screening
Byrne, M. M., Weissfeld, J., & Roberts, M. S. (2008) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x08322013 · Cited by 135
Cited by
Callister, M. E. J., Baldwin, D. R., Akram, A. R., Barnard, S., Cane, P., Draffan, J., Franks, K., Gleeson, F., Graham, R., Malhotra, P., et al. (2015) · Thorax · doi:10.1136/thoraxjnl-2015-207168 · Cited by 958
Klein, A. L., Abbara, S., Agler, D. A., Appleton, C. P., Asher, C. R., Hoit, B., Hung, J., Garcia, M. J., Kronzon, I., Oh, J. K., et al. (2013) · Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography · doi:10.1016/j.echo.2013.06.023 · Cited by 773
Raja, A. S., Greenberg, J. O., Qaseem, A., Denberg, T. D., Fitterman, N., Schuur, J. D., & for the Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians* (2015) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m14-1772 · Cited by 340
Time Trends In Pulmonary Embolism In The United States: Evidence Of Overdiagnosis?
Wiener, R., Schwartz, L., & Woloshin, S. (2010) · D14. INNOVATIVE HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH TO IMPROVE OUTCOMES · doi:10.1164/ajrccm-conference.2010.181.1_meetingabstracts.a5348 · Cited by 256
Metadata
- Authors
- Hall, W. B.
- Venue
- Archives of Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2009-11-23
- Volume
- 169
- Issue
- 21
- Pages
- 1961
- ISSN
- 0003-9926 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2027409628
- Cited by
- 225
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 9.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Prevalence of Clinically Relevant Incidental Findings on Chest Computed Tomographic Angiograms Ordered to Diagnose Pulmonary Embolism. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archinternmed.2009.360
- The paper
- Hall, W. B. (2009). The Prevalence of Clinically Relevant Incidental Findings on Chest Computed Tomographic Angiograms Ordered to Diagnose Pulmonary Embolism. Archives of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2009.360
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.