Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21937616›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of radiology2012

Management of incidental findings during imaging research in "healthy" volunteers: current UK practice.

T C Booth, A D Waldman, J M Wardlaw, S A Taylor, A Jackson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of radiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Returning Incidental Research Findings FromArthritis care & research · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Analogies in Genomics Policymaking: Debates and Drawbacks.American journal of human genetics · 2020
    Article
  11. Observational
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Incidental findings discovered during imaging: implications for general practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2016
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Genetic studies of quantitative MCI and AD phenotypes in ADNI: Progress, opportunities, and plans.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2015
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

T C BoothDepartment of Biochemistry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
A D Waldman
J M Wardlaw
S A Taylor
A Jackson

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesIncidental findings (IF) are becoming increasingly common due to the proliferation of imaging research. IFs can be life-changing for "healthy" volunteers. This study examined variation in IF management in UK research studies of healthy volunteers, including comparison with ethical and legal guidelines, thus providing baseline data and informing future practice.

methodsQuestionnaire of participant background [medical/non-medical; radiologist/non-radiologist; years as principal investigator (PI)], type of research (involving children or not), institutional policy, volunteer information, radiologist involvement in reporting scans and IF disclosure mechanisms. Investigator's current and perceived "ideal" practice was examined. Participants were PIs performing imaging research of healthy volunteers approved by UK ethics committees (2006-2009).

results63/146 (43%) surveys completed. 54/61 (88.5%) had site-specific guidelines. Information commonly provided to volunteers should IF be found: personal data (51/62; 82%), contingency plans (54/62; 87%) and disclosure to general practitioner (GP)/treating physician (47/62; 76%). PIs used different strategies for image review. Commonest: radiologist reports research scans only when researcher suspicious of IF [15/57 (26%) compared with 5/28 (16%) in ideal practice]. Commonest ideal reporting strategy: routine reporting by specialist radiologists [9/28 (29%) compared with 8/57 (14%) in current practice]. 49/56 (87.5%) have a standardised disclosure contingency plan, usually involving GP. PIs most commonly disclosed IFs to volunteers when judged relevant (27/58; 47%), most commonly face to face (22/54; 41%), by volunteer's GP (26/60; 43%). Background of PI influenced consent, reporting and disclosure practice.

conclusionThere is wide variation in handling IFs in UK imaging research. Much of the current practice contravenes the vague existing legal and ethical guidelines, and is unlikely to be in the best interests of volunteers or researchers.

Indexed as

Healthy VolunteersIncidental FindingsRadiographyHuman ExperimentationHumansPractice Patterns, Physicians'Surveys and QuestionnairesUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID21937616
PMCPMC3473920

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.