PURPOSE: To examine different protocols for handling incidental findings on brain research MRIs, and provide a platform for establishing formal discussions of related ethical and policy issues. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Corresponding authors identified from a database of peer-reviewed publications in 1991-2002 involving functional MRI (fMRI), alone or in combination with other imaging modalities, were invited to participate in this web-based survey. The survey asked questions regarding knowledge and handling of incidental findings, as well as characteristics of the scanning environment, training required, IRB protocol requirements, and neuroradiologist involvement. RESULTS: Seventy-four investigators who conduct MRI studies in the United States and abroad responded. Eighty-two percent (54/66) reported discovering incidental findings in their studies, such as arteriovenous malformations, brain tumors, and developmental abnormalities. Substantial variability was found in the procedures for handling and communicating findings to subjects, neuroradiologist involvement, personnel permitted to operate equipment, and training. CONCLUSION: Guidelines for minimum and optimum standards for detecting and communicating incidental findings on brain MRI research are needed.
PURPOSE: To examine different protocols for handling incidental findings on brain research MRIs, and provide a platform for establishing formal discussions of related ethical and policy issues. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Corresponding authors identified from a database of peer-reviewed publications in 1991-2002 involving functional MRI (fMRI), alone or in combination with other imaging modalities, were invited to participate in this web-based survey. The survey asked questions regarding knowledge and handling of incidental findings, as well as characteristics of the scanning environment, training required, IRB protocol requirements, and neuroradiologist involvement. RESULTS: Seventy-four investigators who conduct MRI studies in the United States and abroad responded. Eighty-two percent (54/66) reported discovering incidental findings in their studies, such as arteriovenous malformations, brain tumors, and developmental abnormalities. Substantial variability was found in the procedures for handling and communicating findings to subjects, neuroradiologist involvement, personnel permitted to operate equipment, and training. CONCLUSION: Guidelines for minimum and optimum standards for detecting and communicating incidental findings on brain MRI research are needed.
Entities:
Keywords:
Biomedical and Behavioral Research; Empirical Approach
Authors: Martha J Farah; Judy Illes; Robert Cook-Deegan; Howard Gardner; Eric Kandel; Patricia King; Eric Parens; Barbara Sahakian; Paul Root Wolpe Journal: Nat Rev Neurosci Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 34.870
Authors: L Reneman; M M L de Win; J Booij; W van den Brink; G J den Heeten; N Freling; C B L M Majoie Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-06-21 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Nicholas M Orme; Joel G Fletcher; Hassan A Siddiki; W Scott Harmsen; Megan M O'Byrne; John D Port; William J Tremaine; Henry C Pitot; Elizabeth G McFarland; Marguerite E Robinson; Barbara A Koenig; Bernard F King; Susan M Wolf Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2010-09-27
Authors: Judy Illes; Matthew P Kirschen; Emmeline Edwards; L R Stanford; Peter Bandettini; Mildred K Cho; Paul J Ford; Gary H Glover; Jennifer Kulynych; Ruth Macklin; Daniel B Michael; Susan M Wolf Journal: Science Date: 2006-02-10 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: J Illes; M P Kirschen; E Edwards; P Bandettini; M K Cho; P J Ford; G H Glover; J Kulynych; R Macklin; D B Michael; S M Wolf; T Grabowski; B Seto Journal: Neurology Date: 2008-01-29 Impact factor: 9.910