Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40166487›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of medicine open2025

Returning Individual-Level Urgent or Emergent Research Results to Participants: The Project Baseline Health Study Experience.

Neha Pagidipati, Brooke Heidenfelder, Lydia Coulter Kwee, Fatima Rodriguez, Ranee Chatterjee, Kishan S Parikh, Michel G Khouri, Jennifer Stiller, Julie Eckstrand, P Kelly Marcom and 17 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of medicine open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Return of Research Results to Participants in Longitudinal Cohort Studies in Health Research: Findings From 24 Cohorts of the Amsterdam Cohort Hub.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

27 authors.

Neha PagidipatiDepartment of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, N.C.
Brooke HeidenfelderDuke Clinical and Translational Science Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, N.C.
Lydia Coulter KweeDuke Molecular Physiology Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, N.C.
Fatima RodriguezDepartment of Medicine, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, and the Cardiovascular Institute, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif.
Ranee ChatterjeeDepartment of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, N.C.
Kishan S ParikhDepartment of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, N.C.
Michel G KhouriDepartment of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, N.C.
Jennifer StillerDuke Clinical and Translational Science Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Kannapolis, N.C.
Julie EckstrandDuke Clinical and Translational Science Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, N.C.
P Kelly MarcomDuke Cancer Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, N.C.
Priyatham S MettuDepartment of Ophthalmology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, N.C.
Glenn J JaffeDepartment of Ophthalmology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, N.C.
Sumana ShashidharStanford Center for Clinical Research, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif.
Susan SwopeStanford Center for Clinical Research, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif.
Susan SpielmanStanford Center for Clinical Research, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif.
Elizabeth FrauloDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, N.C.
L Kristin NewbyDepartment of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, N.C.
Pamela DouglasDepartment of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, N.C.
Charlene WongDepartment of Pediatrics, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, N.C.
Robert GreenMass General Brigham, Broad Institute, Ariadne Labs and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass.
Scarlet ShoreVerily Life Sciences, Inc., South San Francisco, Calif.
Jessica MegaVerily Life Sciences, Inc., South San Francisco, Calif.
Adrian HernandezDepartment of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, N.C.
Paul CampbellSanger Heart & Vascular Institute Concord, Concord, N.C.
Kenneth W MahaffeyStanford Center for Clinical Research, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif.
Svati H ShahDepartment of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, N.C.
Project Baseline Health Study Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Returning results to research participants is increasingly recognized as an ethical mandate, yet little is known about best practices to optimally communicate urgent or emergent results. Methods: We describe the development of and experience with a process to return results to participants in the Project Baseline Health Study (PBHS), which was a prospective observational cohort study of 2502 participants enrolled from 2017 to 2019 and followed through 2023. Urgent or emergent results were returned during or after the baseline visit from vital signs; clinical laboratory testing; and ocular, cardiovascular, and pulmonary imaging. Results: Among 2002 participants in this analysis, 39.7% had at least one urgent or emergent finding returned, representing a total of 1159 results returned over 3 years. The most commonly returned results were eye findings ( Conclusions: This report from the PBHS study is one of the first to describe a process to systematically return urgent or emergent results to research participants. This process led to the successful return of clinically important results to participants but also required significant time and effort from study clinicians and staff.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular diseaseDiabetesIncidental findingsLung diseaseProspective studiesReturn of results

Identifiers

PMID40166487
PMCPMC11957782

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.