ArticleTrials2012
What is the role and authority of gatekeepers in cluster randomized trials in health research?
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
24 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- When is it impractical to ask informed consent? A systematic review.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- The Ottawa Statement on the Ethical Design and Conduct of Cluster Randomized Trials.PLoS medicine · 2012Guideline
- Reporting of Research Ethics in Studies Focusing on Foot Health in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis - A Systematic Review.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHREPooled it
- Reconstructing communities in cluster trials?Trials · 2016Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- A Framework of Institutional Obligations for Pragmatic Clinical Trials.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2026Article
- New horizons in improving research capacity in English care homes for older adults.Age and ageing · 2025Article
- Gaps in the Ottawa Statement on the Ethical Design and Conduct of Cluster Randomized Trials: a citation analysis reveals a need for updated ethics guidelines.Research integrity and peer review · 2025Article
- Evaluating Compliance of Randomized Controlled Trial Abstracts in Plastic Surgery Journals with CONSORT Guidelines Using GPT-4 AI.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024Article
- Establishing the safety of selective digestive decontamination within the ICU population: a bridge too far?Trials · 2023Article
- Ethical analysis of vulnerabilities in cluster randomized trials involving people living with dementia in long-term care homes.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2023Article
- Consent Requirements for Testing Health Policies: An Intercontinental Comparison of Expert Opinions.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2022Article
- Ethical and epistemic issues in the design and conduct of pragmatic stepped-wedge cluster randomized clinical trials.Contemporary clinical trials · 2022Article
- Article
- Article
- Developing the ethics of implementation research in health.Implementation science : IS · 2016Article
- Gatekeepers for pragmatic clinical trials.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.