ArticleEuropean radiology2019
How to report incidental findings from population whole-body MRI: view of participants of the German National Cohort.
Article in European radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
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, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Provider and patient perceptions on the usage of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging in oncology: a scoping review.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2026Review
- The Clinical Significance of Extrapancreatic Incidental Findings Detected During Pancreas Surveillance.Gastro hep advances · 2026Article
- A Protocol for Body MRI/CT and Extraction of Imaging-Derived Phenotypes (IDPs) from the China Phenobank Project.Phenomics (Cham, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Baseline MRI Examination in the NAKO Health Study—Findings on Feasibility, Participation and Dropout Rates, Comfort, and Image Quality.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2024Article
- Incidental findings on MRI for the evaluation of endometriosis: prevalence and clinical significance.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- [Patient-centered, value-based management of incidental findings in radiology].Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2023Review
- Framework and baseline examination of the German National Cohort (NAKO).European journal of epidemiology · 2022Article
- Long-Term Psychosocial Consequences of Whole-Body Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Reporting of Incidental Findings in a Population-Based Cohort Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Incidental findings on lung cancer screening: pictorial essay and systematic checklist.Jornal brasileiro de pneumologia : publicacao oficial da Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisilogia · 2022Article
- SHIP-MR and Radiology: 12 Years of Whole-Body Magnetic Resonance Imaging in a Single Center.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- What's New for Clinical Whole-body MRI (WB-MRI) in the 21st Century.The British journal of radiology · 2020Review
- The Impact of Incidental Findings Detected During Brain Imaging on Research Participants of the Rotterdam Study: An Interview Study.Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics : CQ : the international journal of healthcare ethics committees · 2020Article
- Incidentalomas, SPEW, and VOMIT-radiological dyspepsia?European radiology · 2020Article
- Observational
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesIn the German National Cohort (GNC), 30,000 individuals are examined with whole-body MRI (wbMRI), of which about 3000 participants are expected to receive an incidental finding (IF) disclosure. In order to get feedback from participants and to evaluate the IF-management procedure of the wbMRI substudy, a follow-up questionnaire was developed. This single-center pilot trial was aimed to get a first impression on feasibility reproducibility and validity of such a survey in order to take necessary adjustments before initiating the survey among several thousand participants.
methodsThe questionnaires were sent out in test-retest manner to 86 participants who received a wbMRI examination in January-February 2016 at the imaging center in Neubrandenburg. The ratio of participants with and without IF notification was 1:1. Descriptive statistics was performed.
resultsA first response of 94% and completion proportion of 99% were achieved. Participants were satisfied with the examination procedure. Ninety-five percent of participants considered it very important to receive notification of IFs. Participants reported minimal stress levels while waiting for a possible IF notification letter, but high stress levels when an IF letter was received. Phrasing of the IF reports was rated in 97% as well understandable and in 55% as beneficial to health status.
conclusionsThis questionnaire will serve researchers within the GNC as a fundamental instrument not only for quality management analyses but also for the investigation of still unacknowledged scientific and ethical questions contributing to evidence-based guidelines concerning the complex approach to IFs in future population-based imaging. KEY POINTS: • Evidence-based guidelines for reporting incidental findings in population whole-body MRI are lacking. • Pilot-testing of a questionnaire for the evaluation of practical and ethical aspects of the procedure to report incidental findings in the German National Cohort shows a high level of acceptance and high return rate by participants. • Participants reported minimal stress levels while waiting for a possible incidental finding notification letter, which increased significantly, when such a letter was received.
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.