ArticleEuropean radiology2022
Impact of incidental findings on young adult participants in brain imaging research: an interview study.
Article in European radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Classification of incidental findings in polytrauma computed tomography.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- An Equity and Justice-Informed Ethical Framework to Guide Incidental Findings in Brain Imaging Research.Clinics and practice · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe current study aims to investigate young adult research participants' experiences with and preferences regarding the disclosure of MRI incidental findings (IFs) in brain imaging research, and to elucidate the impact and long-term effects of IF disclosure on these participants.
methodsWe conducted 11 semi-structured interviews with 10 research participants to whom an IF was disclosed after they participated in brain MRI research at the Donders Institute, Centre for Cognitive Neuroimaging (DCCN) in the Netherlands. Interview transcripts were analyzed using the constant comparative method.
resultsThe analysis yielded five themes regarding the impact of IF disclosure: the initial shock of disclosure, a period of uncertainty, results of the follow-up examination, long-term impact, and participants' biomedical background. Participants were primarily impacted by the uncertainty in the period immediately following IF disclosure. For our participants, disclosure has had no health benefits and some, albeit mostly temporary and limited, negative impact.
conclusionsOur study suggests that it is important to carefully consider IF disclosure in a population of young healthy participants and emphasizes the relevance of systematic, large-scale follow-up studies to monitor risks and benefits of IF disclosure in this population. The insights from this study can be of added value to improve current research procedures or frameworks for the management and disclosure of IFs in imaging studies. KEY POINTS: • Participants were primarily impacted by the uncertainty in the period immediately following IF disclosure. • Our study suggests that it is important to carefully consider IF disclosure in a population of healthy young adult participants. • Our study emphasizes the relevance of systematic, large-scale follow-up studies to monitor the risks and benefits of IF disclosure in this population.
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.