Does health differ between participants and non-participants in the MRI-HUNT study, a population based neuroimaging study? The Nord-Trøndelag health studies 1984–2009

Honningsvåg, Lasse-Marius; Linde, Mattias; Håberg, Asta; Stovner, Lars Jacob; Hagen, Knut

doi:10.1186/1471-2342-12-23

Cited by 40 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of these, 554 did not respond to the invitation, were excluded owing to general MRI contraindications, stratification or because the examination had to be terminated during the scan, leaving 1006 participants who gave written consent and had the MRI. Details of the HUNT MRI study are described elsewhere (15)(16)(17). After the MRI examinations were performed in the period July 2007 to December 2009, 24 participants were excluded from this particular study because of low image quality of the paranasal sinuses.…”

Section: Study Samplementioning

confidence: 99%

Paranasal sinus opacification in headache sufferers: A population-based imaging study (the HUNT study-MRI)

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Study Samplementioning

confidence: 99%

Paranasal sinus opacification in headache sufferers: A population-based imaging study (the HUNT study-MRI)

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To further assess the representativeness of the HUNT MRI cohort, a participant versus non-participant study was performed utilizing the wealth of questionnaire and clinical data gather in HUNT. In summary, HUNT MRI participants had a somewhat higher level of education, and lower body mass index and blood pressure compared to both invited non-participants and non-invited individuals [8]. However, the differences were small, albeit significant.…”

Section: Reviewmentioning

confidence: 79%

“…Furthermore, most incidental findings have clinical impact and require some type of follow up; e.g., additional neuroimaging, referral to general practitioner or neurosurgeon. Since HUNT MRI was a quite healthy cohort [8] and all findings were checked against patient records and patient medical history, it seems unlikely that the prevalence of incidental findings was overestimated in the study. Nevertheless, the number of incidental findings on brain MRI was higher in this study than in most published studies, particularly the earlier studies [1][2][3][4][5][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16].…”

Section: Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Incidental Findings on Brain MRI: Insight from HUNT MRI - A General Population Study

Ak¹

2016

J Headache Pain Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the study was to assess the prevalence of incidental findings on brain Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) in a general population of middle aged adults. In addition, the clinical impact, follow up and postoperative outcome resulting from uncovering an incidental finding during a research study were examined.Brain MRI was performed in a general population as part of the Nord-Trøndelag Health Study (HUNT), which is a multiphase, multipurpose health study on the inhabitant's ≥13 years in the county of Nord-Trøndelag, Norway. Only standard MRI exclusion criteria were applied to participant selection. In total, 1006 HUNT participants (530 women) between 50 and 66 years were included.The cohort was representative for the population, but participant versus nonparticipant assessment demonstrated a somewhat better health profile of those included in HUNT MRI. Scanning was performed on one 1.5T scanner with a comprehensive scan protocol, all scans were read by two senior neuroradiologists and presence of intracranial findings were evaluated based on patient hospital records and medical history obtained by phone interview.The prevalence of incidental findings on brain MRI was 29% and 15% of the relatively healthy, middle aged adults participating in HUNT MRI were referred to some type of follow-up. Acquired and developmental cerebrovascular pathologies (silent infarctions, excessive white matter hyperintensities relative to age, aneurysms, occlusion/stenosis of arteries, arteriovenous malformation, and cavernous hemangioma) were most common, followed by extra-and intra-axial brain tumors (meningioma, pituitary tumors, glioma or vestibular schwannoma). Intracranial intervention was performed 1.4% of the cohort with one postoperative deficit, giving a prevalence of 0.1% for a postoperative neurological deficit as a result of brain MRI in a research setting.Based on the HUNT MRI cohort, about 1 in 7 middle aged participants from the general population will require clinical follow up if undergoing brain MRI scanning in a research setting. Unrecognized excessive white matter hyperintensities and silent strokes were frequent findings, and demonstrate a significant potential for different types of measures aimed at preventing and/or ameliorating unidentified arteriosclerotic disease to maintain brain health in even quite healthy middle aged adults.

show abstract

“…However, patients in that study were sourced from the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation Registry database and, having already consented to contribute their data to the Registry, may not be representative of the broader population of cystic fibrosis patients. While firm conclusions about differences in research participation in different settings and disease groups are unwarranted due to lack of systematic information, results of our and previous studies indicate that research participation tends to be lower in clinical settings compared with the general population, where participation rate of approximately 30% [9,25] or higher [26] is generally reported.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Do Patients Who Take Part in Stroke Research Differ from Non-Participants? Implications for Generalizability of Results

Busija

Tao²,

Liew³

et al. 2013

Cerebrovasc Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Stroke is one of the most disabling neurological conditions. Clinical research is vital for expanding knowledge of treatment effectiveness among stroke patients. However, evidence begins to accumulate that stroke patients who take part in research represent only a small proportion of all stroke patients. Research participants may also differ from the broader patient population in ways that could potentially distort treatment effects reported in therapeutic trials. The aims of this study were to estimate the proportion of stroke patients who take part in clinical research studies and to compare demographic and clinical profiles of research participants and non-participants. Methods: 5,235 consecutive patients admitted to the Stroke Care Unit of the Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Australia, for stroke or transient ischaemic attack between January 2004 and December 2011 were studied. The study used cross-sectional design. Information was collected on patients' demographic and socio-economic characteristics, risk factors, and comorbidities. Associations between research participation and patient characteristics were initially assessed using χ² or Mann-Whitney tests, followed by a multivariable logistic regression analysis. The logistic regression analysis was carried out using generalised estimating equations approach, to account for patient readmissions during the study period. Results: 558 Stroke Care Unit patients (10.7%) took part in at least one of the 33 clinical research studies during the study period. Transfer from another hospital (OR = 0.35, 95% CI 0.22-0.55), worse premorbid function (OR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.54-0.70), being single (OR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.44-0.84) or widowed (OR = 0.77, 95% CI 0.60-0.99), non-English language (OR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.53-0.85), high socio-economic status (OR = 0.74, 95% CI 0.59-0.93), residence outside Melbourne (OR = 0.75, 95% CI 0.60-0.95), weekend admission (OR = 0.78, 95% CI 0.64-0.94), and a history of atrial fibrillation (OR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.63-0.99) were associated with lower odds of research participation. A history of hypertension (OR = 1.50, 95% CI 1.08-2.07) and current smoking (OR = 1.23, 95% CI 1.01-1.50) on the other hand were associated with higher odds of research participation. Conclusions: The results of this study indicate that stroke patients who take part in clinical research do not represent ‘typical' patient admitted to a stroke unit. The imbalance of prognostic factors between stroke participants and non-participants has serious implications for interpretation of research findings reported in stroke literature. This study provides insights into clinical, demographic, and socio-economic characteristics of stroke patients that could potentially be targeted to enhance generalizability of stroke research studies. Given the imbalance of prognostic factors between research participants and non-participants, future studies need to examine differences in stroke outcomes of these groups of patients.

show abstract

Does health differ between participants and non-participants in the MRI-HUNT study, a population based neuroimaging study? The Nord-Trøndelag health studies 1984–2009

Cited by 40 publications

References 16 publications

Paranasal sinus opacification in headache sufferers: A population-based imaging study (the HUNT study-MRI)

Paranasal sinus opacification in headache sufferers: A population-based imaging study (the HUNT study-MRI)

Incidental Findings on Brain MRI: Insight from HUNT MRI - A General Population Study

Do Patients Who Take Part in Stroke Research Differ from Non-Participants? Implications for Generalizability of Results

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About