ReviewBrain and behavior2016
Evolution of universal review and disclosure of MRI reports to research participants.
Review in Brain and behavior, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Incidental Brain MRI Findings in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2019Pooled it
- Ethical disclosure of biomarkers for Alzheimer risk in Latin American participants.Frontiers in dementia · 2025Article
- Returning Individual Research Results from Digital Phenotyping in Psychiatry.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2024Article
- Expert Stakeholder Perspectives on Emerging Technology for Neuroimaging Research with Highly Portable MRI: The Need for Guidance on Ethical, Legal, and Societal Issues.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2024Article
- Emerging ethical issues raised by highly portable MRI research in remote and resource-limited international settings.NeuroImage · 2021Article
- A Just Standard: The Ethical Management of Incidental Findings in Brain Imaging Research.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2021Article
- Ethical Issues Posed by Field Research Using Highly Portable and Cloud-Enabled Neuroimaging.Neuron · 2020Review
- Article
- Biomedical ethics and clinical oversight in multisite observational neuroimaging studies with children and adolescents: The ABCD experience.Developmental cognitive neuroscience · 2018Review
- Discovery and informing research participants of incidental findings detected in brain magnetic resonance imaging studies: Review and multi-institutional study.Brain and behavior · 2017Review
- Ethical framework for the detection, management and communication of incidental findings in imaging studies, building on an interview study of researchers' practices and perspectives.BMC medical ethics · 2017Article
- Disclosing neuroimaging incidental findings: a qualitative thematic analysis of health literacy challenges.BMC medical ethics · 2016Article
- Evolution of universal review and disclosure of MRI reports to research participants.Brain and behavior · 2016Review
- Factors associated with attitudes toward research MRI in older Asian Americans.Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.)Article
- High prevalence of pineal cysts in adults who stutter.Brain and languageArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAlthough incidental findings (IF) are commonly encountered in neuroimaging research, there is no consensus regarding what to do with them. Whether researchers are obligated to review scans for IF, or if such findings should be disclosed to research participants at all, is controversial. Objective data are required to inform reasonable research policy; unfortunately, such data are lacking in the published literature. This manuscript summarizes the development of a radiology review and disclosure system in place at a neuroimaging research institute and its impact on key stakeholders.
methodsThe evolution of a universal radiology review system is described, from inception to its current status. Financial information is reviewed, and stakeholder impact is characterized through surveys and interviews.
resultsConsistent with prior reports, 34% of research participants had an incidental finding identified, of which 2.5% required urgent medical attention. A total of 87% of research participants wanted their magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) results regardless of clinical significance and 91% considered getting an MRI report a benefit of study participation. A total of 63% of participants who were encouraged to see a doctor about their incidental finding actually followed up with a physician. Reasons provided for not following-up included already knowing the finding existed (14%), not being able to afford seeing a physician (29%), or being reassured after speaking with the institute's Medical Director (43%). Of those participants who followed the recommendation to see a physician, nine (38%) required further diagnostic testing. No participants, including those who pursued further testing, regretted receiving their MRI report, although two participants expressed concern about the excessive personal cost. The current cost of the radiology review system is about $23 per scan.
conclusionsIt is possible to provide universal radiology review of research scans through a system that is cost-effective, minimizes investigator burden, and does not overwhelm local healthcare resources.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.