[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
Editor's Correspondence
April 11, 2011

Another Point of View—Reply

Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Departments of Medicine (Drs Orme, Tremaine, and Pitot) and Radiology (Drs Fletcher, Port, and King), Division of Biostatistics (Mr Harmsen and Ms O’Byrne), and Center for Translational Science Research Ethics Resource (Ms Robinson and Dr Koenig), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota; Department of Internal Medicine, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (Dr Siddiki); and Center for Diagnostic Imaging, St Louis, Missouri (Dr McFarland).

Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(7):702-710. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2011.120

In reply

Dr Finestone points out in his letter some of the complexity inherent to incidental findings (IFs) in general. We share Dr Finestone's concern for patient safety, and this largely motivated the initial undertaking of our study.1 However, we would like to clarify a few points from our article.

First, our study did not examine IFs discovered as a part of clinical practice or screening examinations, as implied by Dr Finestone. Rather our study consisted of IFs discovered only during imaging used as a part of research in institutional review board–approved studies, eg, new imaging methods or routine imaging methods in a new clinical setting.

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview