ReviewBrain and behavior2017
Discovery and informing research participants of incidental findings detected in brain magnetic resonance imaging studies: Review and multi-institutional study.
Review in Brain and behavior, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Potentially serious incidental findings on brain and body magnetic resonance imaging of apparently asymptomatic adults: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2018Pooled it
- Prevalence and outcomes of incidental imaging findings: umbrella review.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2018Pooled it
- An Equity and Justice-Informed Ethical Framework to Guide Incidental Findings in Brain Imaging Research.Clinics and practice · 2023Article
- Incidental neuroimaging findings in South African adult research participants with and without neuropsychiatric disorders.Neuroimage. Reports · 2022Article
- Impact of incidental findings on young adult participants in brain imaging research: an interview study.European radiology · 2022Article
- Incidental Findings Among Youth Participating in Multimodal Imaging Research: Characteristics of Findings and Description of a Management Approach.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2022Article
- Prevalence of incidental brain MRI findings of clinical relevance in a diverse Hispanic/Latino population.Journal of neuroimaging : official journal of the American Society of Neuroimaging · 2021Article
- Discovery and informing research participants of incidental findings detected in brain magnetic resonance imaging studies: Review and multi-institutional study.Brain and behavior · 2017Review
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 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBrain imaging studies using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sometimes reveal incidental findings (IFs) that might be relevant to some of the health issues in research participants. Although professional communities have discussed how to manage these IFs, there is no global consensus on the concrete handling procedures including how to inform participants of IFs.
methodsFirst, this study reviewed previous studies for the number of IFs discovered in brain imaging studies using MEDLINE. Second, a multi-institutional study determined the number of IF discoveries and evaluated the method of informing participants at multiple institutions, which participated in a national brain science project in Japan.
resultsBoth the review and multi-institutional study showed that IFs with a high urgency level were discovered in 0-2.0% of participants, including healthy volunteers, and that the rate of IF discovery in general was higher in studies conducted in elderly population. Moreover, multi-institutional study suggested the criteria used to judge whether or not to inform participants of IFs may differ by institution.
conclusionsOur results suggest that in order to ensure informing the participants of high urgency IFs, physicians who are capable of interpreting brain images clinically should review all brain images, and the establishment of a support system is required for brain imaging studies at nonmedical institutions. Since the method of informing participants of IFs might affect their understanding and acceptance of IFs, which are related to managing risks of false "clean bill of health" or psychological impacts of informing IFs, further research focusing on communication of IFs is needed.
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.