ArticleBMC complementary and alternative medicine2016
A survey of study participants' understanding of informed consent to participate in a randomised controlled trial of acupuncture.
Article in BMC complementary and alternative medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Measuring and evaluating participant understanding of consent processes in clinical trials: a systematic review.Trials · 2026Pooled it
- Participants' understanding of informed consent in clinical trials: A systematic review and updated meta-analysis.PloS one · 2024Pooled it
- How to Improve Safety in Acupuncture Clinical Practice?Medical acupuncture · 2025Article
- Using psychological theory and qualitative methods to develop a new evidence-based website about acupuncture for back pain.European journal of integrative medicine · 2016Article
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
backgroundIt is important that potential study participants are appropriately informed and understand what is involved with their research participation. A few studies have examined study participants' understanding of the informed consent process and the adequacy of the information they received when agreeing to participate in a randomised controlled trial. Deficiencies in the consent process have been found. This topic remains an under researched area of acupuncture research. The aim of this study was to examine participants' understanding of their informed consent and the adequacy of the information presented when agreeing to participate in a randomised controlled trial of acupuncture.
methodsAll women who participated in a randomised controlled trial over an 11 month period were invited to participate in a survey. An anonymous self-completion questionnaire was designed and covered participants' understanding of informed consent in the clinical trial, their views of the information provided, the opportunity to ask questions, the use of sham acupuncture, their recall of study visits and processes for withdrawal, and their reason for participating in the trial.
resultsA response rate of 59% was obtained. Over 90% of subjects indicated there was plenty of opportunity to discuss the study prior to giving consent, and 89% indicated that questions asked were answered to their satisfaction. The majority of women indicated the amount of information describing acupuncture was about right, however 24% would have liked more. Information describing sham acupuncture was not considered adequate by 48% of women, and 35% would have liked more information, 30% could not recall why, or were uncertain why a sham group was used. Participants indicated less understanding of the information relating to payment if they became ill due to study participation, risks and discomforts from the study interventions, which of the procedures were experimental and for how long they would be involved in the study.
conclusionTrial participants' understanding of informed consent was overall satisfactory but highlighted some areas of deficiency. Future studies could consider use of supplementary material such as Q and A fact sheets.
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.