Incidental findings in imaging diagnostic tests: a systematic review

• Published in: British journal of radiology 2010-04, Vol.83 (988), p.276-289
• Main Authors: LUMBRERAS, B, DONAT, L, HERNANDEZ-AGUADO, I
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Biological and medical sciences; Diagnostic Imaging - statistics & numerical data; Humans; Incidental Findings; Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects); Medical sciences; Review
• ISSN: 0007-1285; 1748-880X
• DOI: 10.1259/bjr/98067945

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.