ArticleArthritis care & research2024
Returning Incidental Research Findings From
Article in Arthritis care & research, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThere are limited data on researchers' attitudes and beliefs on returning and managing incidental research findings from whole body
methodsSite principal investigators (PIs) who enrolled participants for the Treatments Against Rheumatoid Arthritis and Effect on FDG PET/CT (TARGET) trial were surveyed.
resultsOf the 28 TARGET site PIs eligible for the study, 18 consented to participate (response rate: 64%). Many site PIs returned incidental findings to participants (61%), and the most common finding that was returned was serious (but not life-threatening) and treatable (54.5%). More than half of the investigators believed that adequacy of clinical follow up (58.8%) and legal liability if incidental findings are not disclosed (55.6%) were extremely important factors in returning incidental research findings from whole body FDG PET/CT. All investigators felt very obligated to return incidental research findings if scans revealed a treatable, high-risk medical condition. Most investigators felt very obligated to disclose incidental findings with important health implications (94.4%), for which proven preventive or therapeutic interventions exist (77.8%), that provide early detection of a health problem (72.2%), if participants ask for their incidental findings (72.2%), and if scans have established validity for a particular medical condition (61.1%).
conclusionAlthough it is recommended that researchers report and manage incidental research findings, our data show differing views and uncertainties on what and how to return, and the extent of follow up needed to manage, incidental findings from whole body FDG PET/CT; this highlights the need for more specific and standardized guidance.
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.