Table 1:

Summary of the articles included in the literature review

Weiner C.1	The authors argue that the possibility of incidental findings should be discussed with the participants and that their preferences regarding their disclosure and management should be assessed. Furthermore, they believe that findings with serious repercussions for which efficient treatments exist should be disclosed. Lastly, they remind us that research is costly and that putting too much funds in incidental findings management in a given study might affect its quality.
Berlin L.19	Commentary on patients’ autonomy regarding disclosure of incidental findings.
Mitka M.20	The author recommends “that those asked to conduct sequencing for a clinical indication also routinely evaluate and report other conditions, genes, and variants to the ordering clinician without seeking a patient’s or family’s preferences and without limits based on a patient’s age.” At odds with the Presidential Commission report.
Powell DK.21	The authors argue that radiological associations should publish pamphlets to patients and family doctors in order to educate about incidental findings.
Ells C, Thombs BD.2	The authors call for evidence-based guidelines on how to disclose incidental findings and argue that they should be anticipated and planned for in clinical and research settings.
Sexton SM.13	The author stresses on the importance of communication between physician and patient and shared decision making on which information should be disclosed and how.
Mccormick JB et al.14	New ways have to be developed to help patients make decisions that respect their needs and autonomy.
Kole J, Flester A.11	Patients should be provided with information about incidental findings in order to give an informed consent. That information should be provided by a radiologist, since they are the most knowledgeable on the subject.
Cramer SC et al.17	The authors devised a system allowing researchers using MRI technology to have access to a radiologist opinion when they have doubts regarding its applicability in routine research because of its cost.
Shoemaker JM et al.18	Researchers evaluated a systematic approach to incidental findings within a research network and found that providing neuroradiology interpretation of MRI scans and helping with clinical follow-up when indicated was cost-effective and suggest it could be adopted by other centers.
Lumbreras B et al.22	A meta-analysis describing the frequency of incidental findings across various imaging technologies and diagnosis.
Orme NM et al.16	Evaluation of research imaging by radiologists may lead to medical benefit in a small number of patients after identification and clinical action to address incidental findings.
Clayton EW.23	The potential utility of an incidental finding should be high in order to disclose it to a patient.
Wolf SM et al.24	Laws and institutions do not offer sufficient guidance to address the incidental findings problem.
Bos D et al.9	This study provides a rough estimate of abnormalities that usually are incidental findings on brain MRIs; very few of these abnormalities require intervention.