ArticleJAMA network open2019
Cascades of Care After Incidental Findings in a US National Survey of Physicians.
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.
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
93 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Audit and feedback to change diagnostic image ordering practices: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2024Pooled it
- Prevalence of incidental intracranial findings on magnetic resonance imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Acta neurochirurgica · 2022Pooled it
- Effect of a Peer Comparison and Educational Intervention on Medical Test Conversation Quality: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2023Trial
- Incidental Coronary Artery Calcium: Opportunistic Screening of Previous Nongated Chest Computed Tomography Scans to Improve Statin Rates (NOTIFY-1 Project).Circulation · 2023Trial
- Effect of Incidental Findings Information on Lung Cancer Screening Intent: a Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of general internal medicine · 2022Trial
- Classification of Emergency Diagnosis-Sensitive Conditions Among Medicare Beneficiaries.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Manufactured Clinical Risk: Why Better Decisions Matter More Than Faster Investigations.Emergency medicine Australasia : EMA · 2026Article
- A Simulation-Based Diagnostic Stewardship Framework for Imaging Utilization in Primary Care: A Model Using 100 Common Clinical Conditions.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Where U.S. Women Receive Primary Care: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- ONCO-RADS-guided Large Language Models for Extraction and Classification of Incidental Findings on Whole-Body Imaging Reports.Radiology. Imaging cancer · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- A Delicate Balance.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2026Article
- 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 · 2026Article
- Test Ordering and Completion During Virtual vs In-Person Annual Visits.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Review
- AI-ECG for Echocardiography Triage in Structural Heart Disease: Evidence, Implementation, and Future Directions.International journal of general medicine · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence-enabled electrocardiography from scientific research to clinical application.EMBO molecular medicine · 2026Review
- Identification and management of incidental findings in a Veteran's lung cancer screening program.Respiratory research · 2025Article
- Article
33 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
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
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.