ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2025
Navigating the challenges of NT-proBNP result disclosure in clinical research.
Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2025. 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.
- 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 · 2026Article
- Informing Scalable Implementation Strategies for Returning Individual Research Results: A Mixed-Methods Study Across Multisite Research Teams.Research square · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Office of Human Research Protections and the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) recommend the return of individual research results (IRRs) to study participants as a strategy to build public trust in science. However, the feasibility of sharing IRRs is unclear. Within a National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded parent study about Long COVID, we embedded the My ILLInet RECOVER Return of Results study to explore clinician-level considerations (e.g., validity, actionability, recommendations for follow-up) about returning a clinically used biomarker for heart failure (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, (NT-proBNP) collected as part of the NIH RECOVER study protocol. Approach: Clinicians participated in a three-phase modified Delphi process that sought their input to guide appropriate follow up recommendations the research team should provide to research participants with an abnormal NT-proBNP. Results: Clinicians agreed that NT-proBNP results could be returned to study participants. However, consensus was not reached on specific NT-proBNP thresholds that warrant immediate medical attention versus general follow-up. Discussion: Lack of clinical context presents a challenge in returning IRRs. Clinicians expressed concerns about the potential harm caused by misinformation or misinterpretation of these findings. While the NASEM report offers guidance on communicating IRRs, careful consideration is essential to ensure that clinical uncertainty is conveyed clearly, minimizing the risk of misinterpretation. Conclusion: The feasibility of returning IRRs to study participants depends, in part, on sufficient clinical context for the information to be actionable.
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.