ArticleScience and engineering ethics2014
Audit of the informed consent process as a part of a clinical research quality assurance program.
Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Participants' understanding of informed consent in clinical trials over three decades: systematic review and meta-analysis.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2015Pooled it
- Article
- Dynamic methods for ongoing assessment of site-level risk in risk-based monitoring of clinical trials: A scoping review.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2021Article
- Why 'understanding' of research may not be necessary for ethical emergency research.Philosophy, ethics, and humanities in medicine : PEHM · 2020Review
- Application of the rapid ethical assessment approach to enhance the ethical conduct of longitudinal population based female cancer research in an urban setting in Ethiopia.BMC medical ethics · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Audits of the informed consent process are a key element of a clinical research quality assurance program. A systematic approach to such audits has not been described in the literature. In this paper we describe two components of the audit. The first is the audit of the informed consent document to verify adherence with federal regulations. The second component is comprised of the audit of the informed consent conference, with emphasis on a real time review of the appropriate communication of the key elements of the informed consent. Quality measures may include preparation of an informed consent history log, notes to accompany the informed consent, the use of an informed consent feedback tool, and the use of institutional surveys to assess comprehension of the informed consent process.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23975172What 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.