Purpose To present an updated prevalence estimate for incidental findings on brain magnetic resonance (MR) images and provide information on clinical relevance, including natural course, over a period of up to 9 years. Materials and Methods This study was approved by the institutional review board and all participants gave informed consent. In a prospective population-based setting, structural brain MR imaging was performed in 5800 participants (mean age, 64.9 years; 3194 women [55.1%]). Trained reviewers recorded abnormalities, which were subsequently evaluated by neuroradiologists. The prevalence with 95% confidence interval (CI) of incidental findings was determined, and clinical management of findings that required the attention of a medical specialist was followed. Follow-up imaging in the study context provided information on the natural course of findings that were not referred. Results In 549 of 5800 participants (9.5% [95% CI: 8.7%, 10.3%]), incidental findings were found, of which meningiomas (143 of 5800; 2.5% [95% CI: 2.1%, 2.9%]) and cerebral aneurysms (134 of 5800; 2.3% [95% CI: 2.0%, 2.7%]) were most common. A total of 188 participants were referred to medical specialists for incidental findings (3.2% [95% CI: 2.8%, 3.7%]). Of these, 144 (76.6% [95% CI: 70.1%, 82.1%]) either underwent a wait-and-see policy or were discharged after the initial clinical visit. The majority of meningiomas and virtually all aneurysms not referred or referred but untreated remained stable in size during follow-up. Conclusion Incidental findings at brain MR imaging that necessitate further diagnostic evaluation occur in over 3% of the general middle-aged and elderly population, but are mostly without direct clinical consequences. RSNA, 2016.

A variety of surgical procedures reportedly have satisfactory outcomes. However, outcomes are reported in an inconsistent manner, prohibiting pooling of studies and comparisons of surgical procedures and their outcomes. We propose several methodological changes for implementation in future studies, increasing the quality of evidence to compensate for small patient numbers.

Background: Professional advancement in academic plastic surgery may depend on scholarly activity. The authors evaluate gender-based publishing characteristics in three international plastic surgery journals. Methods: A retrospective review of all articles published in 2016 in the following journals was undertaken: Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, European Journal of Plastic Surgery, Annals of Surgery, and New England Journal of Medicine. Data were collected on lead author gender (first or senior author) and differences in author gender proportions, by journal, by article topic, and by geographic location were evaluated. Results: Overall, 2610 articles were retrieved: 34.1 percent were from plastic surgery journals, 12.8 percent were from the Annals of Surgery, and 53.1 percent were from the New England Journal of Medicine. There was a lower proportion of female lead authors among plastic surgery journals compared with the Annals of Surgery and the New England Journal of Medicine (31 percent versus 39 percent versus 39 percent; p = 0.001). There were no differences in female lead author geographic location in the Annals of Surgery or the New England Journal of Medicine; within the plastic surgery journals, there were differences (p = 0.005), including a lower proportion arising from East Asia (15 percent) and a higher proportion arising from Canada (48 percent). Within plastic surgery, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery had the lowest proportion of female lead author (p < 0.001). The proportion of female lead author varied by article topic (p < 0.001) and was notably higher in breast (45.6 percent) and lower in head and neck/craniofacial-orientated articles (25.0 percent). Conclusions: There are gender disparities in three mainstream plastic surgery journals—Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, the Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, the European Journal of Plastic Surgery—and there are lower proportions of lead female authorship compared with the Annals of Surgery and the New England Journal of Medicine. Further research should focus on understanding any geographic disparities that may exist.