Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2010 Apr;83(988):276-89.
doi: 10.1259/bjr/98067945.

Incidental findings in imaging diagnostic tests: a systematic review

Affiliations

Incidental findings in imaging diagnostic tests: a systematic review

B Lumbreras et al. Br J Radiol. 2010 Apr.

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Description of the literature search.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Deyo R. Cascade effects of medical technology. Annu Rev Public Health 2002;23:23–44 - PubMed
    1. Young WF. Clinical practice. The incidentally discovered adrenal mass. N Engl J Med 2007;356:601–10 - PubMed
    1. Beigelman-Aubry C, Hill C, Grenier PA. Management of an incidentally discovered pulmonary nodule. Eur Radiol 2007;17:449–66 - PubMed
    1. Mold JW, Stein HFC. The cascade effect in the clinical care of patients. N Engl J Med 1986;314:512–14 - PubMed
    1. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PM, Kleijnen J. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2003;3:25–37 - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms