↓ Skip to main content

Incidental chest findings on coronary CT angiography: a pictorial essay and management proposal

Overview of attention for article published in Jornal de Pneumologia, August 2022
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
1 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Incidental chest findings on coronary CT angiography: a pictorial essay and management proposal
Published in
Jornal de Pneumologia, August 2022
DOI 10.36416/1806-3756/e20220015
Pubmed ID
Authors

Erique Pinto, Diana Penha, Bruno Hochhegger, Colin Monaghan, Edson Marchiori, Luís Taborda-Barata, Klaus Irion

Abstract

Many health systems have been using coronary CT angiography (CCTA) as a first-line examination for ischaemic heart disease patients in various countries. The rising number of CCTA examinations has led to a significant increase in the number of reported incidental extracardiac findings, mainly in the chest. Pulmonary nodules are the most common incidental findings on CCTA scans, as there is a substantial overlap of risk factors between the population seeking to exclude ischaemic heart disease and those at risk of developing lung cancer (i.e., advanced age and smoking habits). However, most incidental findings are clinically insignificant and actively pursuing them could be cost-prohibitive and submit the patient to unnecessary and potentially harmful examinations. Furthermore, there is little consensus regarding when to report or actively exclude these findings and how to manage them, that is, when to trigger an alert or to immediately refer the patient to a pulmonologist, a thoracic surgeon or a multidisciplinary team. This pictorial essay discusses the current literature on this topic and is illustrated with a review of CCTA scans. We also propose a checklist organised by organ and system, recommending actions to raise awareness of pulmonologists, thoracic surgeons, cardiologists and radiologists regarding the most significant and actionable incidental findings on CCTA scans.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 June 2022.
All research outputs
#16,785,164
of 25,462,162 outputs
Outputs from Jornal de Pneumologia
#294
of 719 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#235,345
of 430,138 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Jornal de Pneumologia
#5
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,462,162 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 719 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 430,138 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.