Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 370

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 access
Lumbreras, B, Donat, L, Hernández-Aguado, I·2010·The British Journal of Radiology

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1259/bjr/98067945

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 370

Metadata

Authors
Lumbreras, B., Donat, L., & Hernández-Aguado, I.
Venue
The British Journal of Radiology
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.