Table 5.

Comparisons of IESF for studies

Study	Study characteristics	Total Pts (n)	Age	“Nodule” rate	Clinically relevant IESF	Total IF rate
Our study	EOS imaging IESF rate	503 44.5% male	Mean 60 yo Range: 18–91 yo	Nodules, only: 0.99% Nodules + granulomas 2.2%	Major and Moderate: 4.8% Clinically relevant: 0.8%	60.4%
Den Harder et al. [31]	Cardiac patients undergoing preop CXR IF rate Included spinal abnormalities	1136 70% male	Mean: 65 yo No Range reported	Pulm mass: 0.8%	Findings that resulted in further workup: 1.3%	50% (patients that had 1 + abnormalities on CXR)
Van Vugt et al. [32]	European study, multicenter CXR for acute cough in outpatient clinic IF rate	2823 43.5% male	Mean: 53 yo Range: 18–92 yo	Nodule, density shadow rate: 1.8%	Clinically relevant: 3%	Mean: 19% Range (from individual centers): 0–25%
Quattrochi et al. [12]	Lumbar MRI (1.5 T) IESF rate No thoracic findings in study	3000 48.4% male	Mean: 59.3 yo Range: 16–91 yo	–	E3 + E4: 11.3% 16.5% of patients E4: 2.5% E2: 57.4%	68.6%
Semaan et al. [13]	Lumbar MRI IESF rate	3024 45% male	Mean: 63 yo Range: 18–95 yo	–	E3 + E4: 6.65% E2: 20% E4: 1.25%	22%
Lee et al. [24]	CT lumbar spine for LBP IESF rate	400 53% male	Mean: 49 yo Range: 20–91 yo	–	E3 + E4: 14.8% E4: 4.3% E2: 25.3%	40.5%

IF incidental finding, IESF incidental extraspinal finding, CXR chest radiograph, MRI magnetic resonance imaging, CT Computed Tomography