ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2024
Participant perspectives on management and communication of incidental findings identified on radiographic imaging performed during a clinical research trial: A single site pilot study.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Incidental findings (IFs) in radiographic imaging are unexpected discoveries unrelated to the purpose of the scan. While the protocol for communicating IFs is better defined for clinical providers, little formal guidance on communicating IFs identified on research scans to participants is available. This study explored participants' experience with communication and management of IFs found on imaging identified in a clinical research trial. Methods: Participants who completed the parent clinical trial, which included imaging, were invited to participate. A survey, developed by the study team, was administered telephonically, and consisted of multiple choice and open-ended questions. Results: Thirty participants enrolled in the survey study. Ninety-three percent of all participants (with and without IFs) reported they would participate in another research study to learn information that was important to their health. Seventeen participants reported being notified about an IF on their study scan(s). Ninety-four percent of those participants with an IF were satisfied with how the IF was communicated, and 71 % were grateful to find out about a health problem before it became an issue. Forty-one percent reported that learning about the IF led to improved health. Content analysis of the data from the open-ended questions revealed categories and themes which enriched the quantitative data. Conclusion: Participants generally wanted to know when an IF was discovered unexpectedly on their imaging scan, as they learned important information about their health. Findings underscore the importance of having a clear protocol for communicating IFs to research study participants that undergo evaluation with radiographic imaging.
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.