Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25574795›Full record

Trial reportCritical care medicine2015

Patients' perspectives of enrollment in research without consent: the patients' experiences in emergency research-progesterone for the treatment of traumatic brain injury study.

Neal W Dickert, Victoria M Scicluna, Jill M Baren, Michelle H Biros, Ross J Fleischman, Prasanthi R Govindarajan, Elizabeth B Jones, Arthur M Pancioli, David W Wright, Rebecca D Pentz

Erratum issuedOpen access · greenAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Critical care medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Exception From Informed Consent Community Consultation Surveys-Do Respondent Characteristics Accurately Reflect Targeted Communities?Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2026
    Article
  7. Community Acceptance of a Pediatric Prehospital Exception From Informed Consent Trial.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Meeting unique requirements: Community consultation and public disclosure for research in emergency setting using exception from informed consent.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2021
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Public Deliberation as a Novel Method for an Exception From Informed Consent Community Consultation.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2019
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Neal W Dickert1Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA. 2Department of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, GA. 3Atlanta VA Medical Center, Atlanta, GA. 4Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA. 5Department of Emergency Medicine, Hennepin County Medical Center and University of Minnesota School of Medicine, Minneapolis, MN. 6Department of Emergency Medicine, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA. 7Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA. 8Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Texas Medical School at Houston, Houston, TX. 9Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Cincinnati School of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH. 10Department of Emergency Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA. 11Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA.
Victoria M Scicluna
Jill M Baren
Michelle H Biros
Ross J Fleischman
Prasanthi R Govindarajan
Elizabeth B Jones
Arthur M Pancioli
David W Wright
Rebecca D Pentz
Emory University · USHarbor–UCLA Medical Center · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · USUniversity of Cincinnati · USUniversity of Minnesota · USUniversity of Pennsylvania · US

Funding

ProTECT IIIU01NS062778 · NINDS · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI WRIGHT, DAVID W · 2009 to 2013
$26.4M
Neurological Emergencies Treatment Trials (NETT) Network Clinical Site Hubs....U10NS059032 · NINDS · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI WRIGHT, DAVID W · 2007 to 2016
$2.5M
Neurological Emergencies Treatment Trials Southeast Texas Clinical Site HubU10NS058930 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR HOUSTON · PI JONES, ELIZABETH B. · 2007 to 2016
$2.4M
Ethics in Resuscitation Research: Understanding and Incorporating Community ViewsF32HL095358 · NHLBI · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI DICKERT, NEAL WORKMAN · 2009 to 2009
$52k
NHLBI NIH HHS F32 HL095358NHLBI NIH HHS F32HL095358-01A1NINDS NIH HHS 5U01NS062778NINDS NIH HHS U01 NS062778NINDS NIH HHS U10 NS058930NINDS NIH HHS U10 NS059032
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveResearch in acute illness often requires an exception from informed consent. Few studies have assessed the views of patients enrolled in exception from informed consent trials. This study was designed to assess the views of patients and their surrogates of exception from informed consent enrollment within the context of a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of an investigational agent for traumatic brain injury.

designInteractive interview study.

settingNested within the Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury trial, a Phase III randomized controlled trial in acute traumatic brain injury. SUBJECTS: Patients and surrogates (for patients incapable of being interviewed) enrolled in Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury under exception from informed consent at 12 sites.

interventionsNone. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN

resultsInterviews focused on respondents' acceptance of exception from informed consent enrollment in Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury, use of placebo and randomization, understanding of major study elements, and views regarding regulatory protections. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed; textual data were analyzed thematically. Eighty-five individuals were interviewed. Eighty-four percent had positive attitudes toward Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury inclusion. Seventy-eight percent found their inclusion under exception from informed consent acceptable, and 72% found use of exception from informed consent in Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury acceptable in general. Only two respondents clearly disagreed with both personal and general exception from informed consent enrollment. The most common concerns (26%) related to absence of consent. Eighty percent and 92% were accepting of placebo use and randomization, respectively. Although there were few black respondents (n = 11), they were less accepting of personal exception from informed consent enrollment than white respondents (55% vs 83%; p = 0.0494).

conclusionsAcceptance of exception from informed consent in this placebo-controlled trial of an investigational agent was high and exceeded acceptance among community consultation participants. Exception from informed consent enrollment appears generally consistent with patients' preferences.

Indexed as

EmergenciesAdultAgedBiomedical ResearchBrain InjuriesFemaleHumansInformed ConsentInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedPatientsPerceptionPlacebosProgesteroneRacial GroupsPlacebosProgesterone

Identifiers

PMID25574795
PMCPMC5094912
OpenAlexW2090153260

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.