Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31617925›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2019

Cascades of Care After Incidental Findings in a US National Survey of Physicians.

Ishani Ganguli, Arabella L Simpkin, Claire Lupo, Arlene Weissman, Alexander J Mainor, E John Orav, Meredith B Rosenthal, Carrie H Colla, Thomas D Sequist

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 93 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
93citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

93 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Where U.S. Women Receive Primary Care: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. A Delicate Balance.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2026
    Article
  14. Detecting cancer recurrence in general practice: a Danish national cohort study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

33 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Ishani GanguliHarvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Arabella L SimpkinHarvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Claire LupoDivision of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Arlene WeissmanAmerican College of Physicians, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Alexander J MainorThe Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire.
E John OravDivision of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Meredith B RosenthalDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Carrie H CollaThe Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire.
Thomas D SequistHarvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.

Funding

AHRQ HHS R01 HS023812
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Incidental findings on screening and diagnostic tests are common and may prompt cascades of testing and treatment that are of uncertain value. No study to date has examined physician perceptions and experiences of these cascades nationally. Objective: To estimate the national frequency and consequences of cascades of care after incidental findings using a national survey of US physicians. Design, Setting, and Participants: Population-based survey study using data from a 44-item cross-sectional, online survey among 991 practicing US internists in a research panel representative of American College of Physicians national membership. The survey was emailed to panel members on January 22, 2019, and analysis was performed from March 11 to May 27, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Physician report of prior experiences with cascades, features of their most recently experienced cascade, and perception of potential interventions to limit the negative consequences of cascades. Results: This study achieved a 44.7% response rate (376 completed surveys) and weighted responses to be nationally representative. The mean (SE) age of respondents was 43.4 (0.7) years, and 60.4% of respondents were male. Almost all respondents (99.4%; percentages were weighted) reported experiencing cascades, including cascades with clinically important and intervenable outcomes (90.9%) and cascades with no such outcome (94.4%). Physicians reported cascades caused their patients psychological harm (68.4%), physical harm (15.6%), and financial burden (57.5%) and personally caused the physicians wasted time and effort (69.1%), frustration (52.5%), and anxiety (45.4%). When asked about their most recent cascade, 33.7% of 371 respondents reported the test revealing the incidental finding may not have been clinically appropriate. During this most recent cascade, physicians reported that guidelines for follow-up testing were not followed (8.1%) or did not exist to their knowledge (53.2%). To lessen the negative consequences of cascades, 62.8% of 376 respondents chose accessible guidelines and 44.6% chose decision aids as potential solutions. Conclusions and Relevance: The survey findings indicate that almost all respondents had experienced cascades after incidental findings that did not lead to clinically meaningful outcomes yet caused harm to patients and themselves. Policy makers and health care leaders should address cascades after incidental findings as part of efforts to improve health care value and reduce physician burnout.

Indexed as

Incidental FindingsAdultCross-Sectional StudiesDecision Support TechniquesFemaleGuideline AdherenceHumansInternal MedicineMaleMiddle AgedOccupational StressPatient CarePhysiciansPractice Guidelines as TopicPractice Patterns, Physicians'Surveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID31617925
PMCPMC6806665

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.