ArticleAtencion primaria2016
[Informed consent process in clinical trials: Insights of researchers, patients and general practitioners].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Analysis of pediatric assent information in early-phase cancer clinical trials through a children's research advisory group.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Effect of Virtual Reality on Pediatric Pain and Fear During Procedures Involving Needles: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.JMIR serious games · 2022Review
- [Ortographic standarization. Answer].Atencion primaria · 2018Article
- [Ortographic standarization].Atencion primaria · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveAdequate information for patients and respect for their autonomy are mandatory in research. This article examined insights of researchers, patients and general practitioners (GPs) on the informed consent process in clinical trials, and the role of the GP.
designA cross-sectional study using three questionnaires, informed consent reviews, medical records, and hospital discharge reports.
settingGPs, researchers and patients involved in clinical trials.
participantsIncluded, 504 GPs, 108 researchers, and 71 patients.
resultsConsulting the GP was recommended in 50% of the informed consents. Participation in clinical trials was shown in 33% of the medical records and 3% of the hospital discharge reports. GPs scored 3.54 points (on a 1-10 scale) on the assessment of the information received by the principal investigator. The readability of the informed consent sheet was rated 8.03 points by researchers, and the understanding was rated 7.68 points by patients. Patient satisfaction was positively associated with more time for reflection.
conclusionsGPs were not satisfied with the information received on the participation of patients under their in clinical trials. Researchers were satisfied with the information they offered to patients, and were aware of the need to improve the information GPs received. Patients collaborated greatly towards biomedical research, expressed satisfaction with the overall process, and minimised the difficulties associated with participation.
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.