Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22834691›Full record

ArticleTrials2012

What is the role and authority of gatekeepers in cluster randomized trials in health research?

Antonio Gallo, Charles Weijer, Angela White, Jeremy M Grimshaw, Robert Boruch, Jamie C Brehaut, Allan Donner, Martin P Eccles, Andrew D McRae, Raphael Saginur and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. A Framework of Institutional Obligations for Pragmatic Clinical Trials.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Consent Requirements for Testing Health Policies: An Intercontinental Comparison of Expert Opinions.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2022
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Gatekeepers for pragmatic clinical trials.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2015
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Antonio GalloRotman Institute of Philosophy, University of Western Ontario, London, ON N6A 5B8, Canada.
Charles Weijer
Angela White
Jeremy M Grimshaw
Robert Boruch
Jamie C Brehaut
Allan Donner
Martin P Eccles
Andrew D McRae
Raphael Saginur
Merrick Zwarenstein
Monica Taljaard

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article is part of a series of papers examining ethical issues in cluster randomized trials (CRTs) in health research. In the introductory paper in this series, we set out six areas of inquiry that must be addressed if the CRT is to be set on a firm ethical foundation. This paper addresses the sixth of the questions posed, namely, what is the role and authority of gatekeepers in CRTs in health research? 'Gatekeepers' are individuals or bodies that represent the interests of cluster members, clusters, or organizations. The need for gatekeepers arose in response to the difficulties in obtaining informed consent because of cluster randomization, cluster-level interventions, and cluster size. In this paper, we call for a more restrictive understanding of the role and authority of gatekeepers.Previous papers in this series have provided solutions to the challenges posed by informed consent in CRTs without the need to invoke gatekeepers. We considered that consent to randomization is not required when cluster members are approached for consent at the earliest opportunity and before any study interventions or data-collection procedures have started. Further, when cluster-level interventions or cluster size means that obtaining informed consent is not possible, a waiver of consent may be appropriate. In this paper, we suggest that the role of gatekeepers in protecting individual interests in CRTs should be limited. Generally, gatekeepers do not have the authority to provide proxy consent for cluster members. When a municipality or other community has a legitimate political authority that is empowered to make such decisions, cluster permission may be appropriate; however, gatekeepers may usefully protect cluster interests in other ways. Cluster consultation may ensure that the CRT addresses local health needs, and is conducted in accord with local values and customs. Gatekeepers may also play an important role in protecting the interests of organizations, such as hospitals, nursing homes, general practices, and schools. In these settings, permission to access the organization relies on resource implications and adherence to institutional policies.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelInformed ConsentPatient SelectionProfessional RoleResearch DesignCluster AnalysisDecision MakingHealth Services ResearchHumansProxyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSample Size

Identifiers

PMID22834691
PMCPMC3443001

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.