Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40865121›Full record

ReviewInteractive journal of medical research2025

Developing Requirements for a Standardized System to Return Individual Research Results Back to Study Participants: Narrative Review.

Rosalyn Leigh Carr, Vita Chan, Nicholas C West, Matthias Görges

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Interactive journal of medical research, 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. A 360 Degree Qualitative Ethical Assessment of Reporting Patient Reported Outcomes.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
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

4 authors.

Rosalyn Leigh CarrThe School of Biomedical Engineering, University of British Columbia, 6088 University Boulevard, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z3, Canada, 1 6048227810.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4371-0881
Vita ChanResearch Institute, BC Children's Hospital, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7470-8453
Nicholas C WestResearch Institute, BC Children's Hospital, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8382-5136
Matthias GörgesResearch Institute, BC Children's Hospital, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2193-178X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The increasing prevalence of smart devices has created vast amounts of untapped data, presenting new opportunities for data sharing across various fields, such as environmental sciences, health management, and astrophysics. While a significant portion of the public is willing to donate personal data, we need to better understand how to obtain information about which data assets a person may hold and the risks, benefits, and potential uses of this data exchange mechanism. Developing a trusted data-sharing platform may increase participants' willingness to donate data and researchers' ability to return personalized results from research findings. Objective: This study aimed to develop a preliminary list of core requirements, which can be used to develop design recommendations for standardizing the return of individual research results to study participants across research disciplines. Methods: We conducted a narrative literature review of existing platforms used to return research results to study participants. The search strategy included English-language articles published between May 2013 and May 2023. Concepts related to returning, disseminating, and sharing research results were searched for in (1) published research reports on Web of Science and MEDLINE, (2) gray literature, and (3) the bibliographies of included articles. Screening and data extraction were performed by 2 independent reviewers using Covidence. Inclusion criteria required that the study (1) included human participants, (2) returned information based on data collected from or by participants, (3) was published in English, and (4) included a description of a results-sharing system. Articles that met all 4 inclusion criteria were included in the review; articles that met the first 3 were also presented as supplementary articles. Results and requirements were synthesized thematically. Results: Overall, 6608 abstracts were screened, and 266 articles underwent full-text review to identify 8 articles describing the development and evaluation of 7 different return of results systems. In total, 7 of the 8 articles reported the use of multimodal dissemination methods, including a combination of physical documents, emails, phone calls, and digital platforms to support text and graphical data representations. One article outlined accessibility features to serve the specific participant population. None of the articles described in detail how results were or were not anonymized. A total of 4 studies relied on an expert or clinician to share results on behalf of the research team. Additional educational or contextual materials were included alongside results in four studies, including specific materials designed for follow-up with experts and clinicians. Participants were not hesitant to receive unfavorable results and instead aimed to incorporate such information into their lives via lifestyle changes, clinical intervention, or seeking community. Conclusions: Return of results systems should support multiple modes of dissemination for text-based results. Additional educational and lay-language materials are helpful for participants to understand and use information gained from receiving results.

Indexed as

data integrationdata visualizationknowledge translationnarrative reviewpersonalizationresearcherresearch ethicsresearchingresearch participantsresearch resultsreturn of resultsstudy participantssystem

Identifiers

PMID40865121
PMCPMC12387377

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.