↓ Skip to main content

Managing Incidental Findings in Human Subjects Research: Analysis and Recommendations

Overview of attention for article published in The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, January 2021
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#44 of 1,112)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
policy
4 policy sources
twitter
8 tweeters
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
579 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
343 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Managing Incidental Findings in Human Subjects Research: Analysis and Recommendations
Published in
The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, January 2021
DOI 10.1111/j.1748-720x.2008.00266.x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susan M. Wolf, Frances P. Lawrenz, Charles A. Nelson, Jeffrey P. Kahn, Mildred K. Cho, Ellen Wright Clayton, Joel G. Fletcher, Michael K. Georgieff, Dale Hammerschmidt, Kathy Hudson, Judy Illes, Vivek Kapur, Moira A. Keane, Barbara A. Koenig, Bonnie S. LeRoy, Elizabeth G. McFarland, Jordan Paradise, Lisa S. Parker, Sharon F. Terry, Brian Van Ness, Benjamin S. Wilfond

Abstract

No consensus yet exists on how to handle incidental findings (IFs) in human subjects research. Yet empirical studies document IFs in a wide range of research studies, where IFs are findings beyond the aims of the study that are of potential health or reproductive importance to the individual research participant. This paper reports recommendations of a two-year project group funded by NIH to study how to manage IFs in genetic and genomic research, as well as imaging research. We conclude that researchers have an obligation to address the possibility of discovering IFs in their protocol and communications with the IRB, and in their consent forms and communications with research participants. Researchers should establish a pathway for handling IFs and communicate that to the IRB and research participants. We recommend a pathway and categorize IFs into those that must be disclosed to research participants, those that may be disclosed, and those that should not be disclosed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 343 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 9 3%
Canada 4 1%
Germany 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 323 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 71 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 52 15%
Student > Master 46 13%
Other 32 9%
Student > Bachelor 27 8%
Other 72 21%
Unknown 43 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 93 27%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 40 12%
Social Sciences 27 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 25 7%
Psychology 23 7%
Other 71 21%
Unknown 64 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 47. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 June 2021.
All research outputs
#684,924
of 21,338,376 outputs
Outputs from The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics
#44
of 1,112 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,504
of 289,502 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics
#4
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,338,376 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,112 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 289,502 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.