Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42551209›Full record

ArticlePatient education and counseling2026

Communication of incidental findings in the ED: Patient perspectives.

Alessia F Mollo, Danielle M McCarthy, Kenzie A Cameron, Miriam Rafferty, Siyuan Dong, Jungwha Lee, Lisa B VanWagner, Anuva Fellner, Amy V Kontrick

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Patient education and counseling, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

9 authors.

Alessia F MolloNorthwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, United States.
Danielle M McCarthyNorthwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine Department of Emergency Medicine, United States.
Kenzie A CameronNorthwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine Division of General Internal Medicine, United States.
Miriam RaffertyNorthwestern University Feinberg Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, United States.
Siyuan DongNorthwestern University Department of Preventive Medicine, United States.
Jungwha LeeNorthwestern University Department of Preventive Medicine, United States.
Lisa B VanWagnerUniversity of Texas Southwestern Department of Internal Medicine, United States.
Anuva FellnerMedline Industries LP Northfield, United States.
Amy V KontrickNorthwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine Department of Emergency Medicine, United States. Electronic address: a-kontrick@northwestern.edu.

Funding

Northwestern University Clinical and Translational Science Institute (NUCATS)UL1TR001422 · NCATS · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI D'AQUILA, RICHARD · 2015 to 2023
$56.8M
AHRQ HHS R01 HS029777NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001422
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesIncidental findings are commonly identified on emergency department (ED) imaging, often unrelated to the reason for encounter. While system-level interventions have aimed to improve notification and follow-up, less is known about patients' experiences of receiving these unexpected results. We sought to explore ED patients' perspectives on incidental finding notification.

methodsA qualitative analysis was conducted of semi-structured interviews of 16 adult ED patients undergoing abdominal CT or ultrasound imaging at a large academic ED. Interviews were originally collected for a larger implementation trial of an electronic health record-based incidental finding notification system. Interviews explored patient preferences for communication of incidental findings including preferred communicator and desired information. The analytic team employed inductive thematic analysis, using iterative coding and team reconciliation to ultimately develop themes. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the sample.

resultsForty-four percent of the 16 participants were aged 35-44 (25% were aged 45-54 years; 31% were 55 years or older); 62.5% female (Table 1). Only 25% of participants reported awareness of the concept of incidental findings prior to the interview. Four themes emerged: (1) Empathetic expert communication is preferred; (2) Incidental findings trigger diverse health, emotional, and financial concerns; (3) Details of both the finding and cause are valued; and (4) Information and support are desired for next steps.

conclusionsPatients view incidental findings as unexpected and often stressful information requiring clear, empathetic, and actionable communication. Incorporating these preferences into ED notification processes may improve understanding, reduce distress, and support timely follow-up. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Standardizing incidental finding disclosure to include plain language explanations of the finding, its cause, and detailed next steps may support ED patients as they navigate future care and the myriad concerns that arise from an unexpected result. Achieving such standardization will likely require both communication training and electronic health record integration. In ED practice, this should include a brief verbal disclosure paired with EHR-supported written instructions that identify the finding, explain urgency, name the appropriate follow-up clinician, and specify patient and clinician next steps.

Indexed as

CommunicationEmergency Service, HospitalIncidental FindingsPatient PreferenceAdultAgedEmergency Room VisitsFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedPhysician-Patient RelationsQualitative ResearchReturn of Individual Research ResultsEmergency departmentHepatic steatosisIncidental findingsPatient communicationPatient educationQualitative research

Identifiers

PMID42551209
PMCPMC13519895

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.