The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Incidental findings in imaging diagnostic tests: a systematic review
Open accessAbstract
The objective of this review is to summarise the available evidence on the frequency and management of incidental findings in imaging diagnostic tests. Original articles were identified by a systematic search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library Plus databases using appropriate medical headings. Extracted variables were study design; sample size; type of imaging test; initial diagnosis; frequency and location of incidental findings; whether clinical follow-up was performed; and whether a definitive diagnosis was made. Study characteristics were assessed by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. Any disagreement was solved by consensus. The relationship between the frequency of incidental findings and the study characteristics was assessed using a one-way ANOVA test, as was the frequency of follow-up of incidental findings and the frequency of confirmation. 251 potentially relevant abstracts were identified and 44 articles were finally included in the review. Overall, the mean frequency of incidental findings was 23.6% (95% confidence interval (CI) 15.8-31.3%). The frequency of incidental findings was higher in studies involving CT technology (mean 31.1%, 95% CI 20.1-41.9%), in patients with an unspecific initial diagnosis (mean 30.5, 95% CI 0-81.6) and when the location of the incidental findings was unspecified (mean 33.9%, 95% CI 18.1-49.7). The mean frequency of clinical follow-up was 64.5% (95% CI 52.9-76.1%) and mean frequency of clinical confirmation was 45.6% (95% CI 32.1-59.2%). Although the optimal strategy for the management of these abnormalities is still unclear, it is essential to be aware of the low clinical confirmation in findings of moderate and major importance.
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
Whiting, P., Rutjes, A. W., Reitsma, J. B., Bossuyt, P. M., & Kleijnen, J. (2003) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-3-25 · Cited by 3,592
Cited by
Kratzer, T. B., Bandi, P., Freedman, N. D., Smith, R. A., Travis, W. D., Jemal, A., & Siegel, R. L. (2024) · Cancer · doi:10.1002/cncr.35128 · Cited by 512
Berg, J. S., Khoury, M. J., & Evans, J. P. (2011) · Genetics in Medicine · doi:10.1097/gim.0b013e318220aaba · Cited by 490
Prevalence and outcomes of incidental imaging findings: umbrella review
O’Sullivan, J. W., Muntinga, T., Grigg, S., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2018) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.k2387 · Cited by 339
Sandeman, E. M., Hernandez, M. D. C. V., Morris, Z., Bastin, M. E., Murray, C., Gow, A. J., Corley, J., Henderson, R., Deary, I. J., Starr, J. M., et al. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0071467 · Cited by 61
Williams, L., Carrigan, A., Auffermann, W., Mills, M., Rich, A., Elmore, J., & Drew, T. (2021) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-020-01826-4 · Cited by 45
Metadata
- Authors
- Lumbreras, B., Donat, L., & Hernández-Aguado, I.
- Venue
- The British Journal of Radiology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2010-04
- Volume
- 83
- Issue
- 988
- Pages
- 276-289
- ISSN
- 0007-1285 (ISSN-L)
- 1748-880X
- OpenAlex
- W2040265857
- Cited by
- 370
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 0.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Incidental findings in imaging diagnostic tests: a systematic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1259/bjr/98067945
- The paper
- Lumbreras, B., Donat, L., & Hernández-Aguado, I. (2010). Incidental findings in imaging diagnostic tests: a systematic review. The British Journal of Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/98067945
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.