Trial reportPloS one2016
A Randomised Controlled Trial of Consent Procedures for the Use of Residual Tissues for Medical Research: Preferences of and Implications for Patients, Research and Clinical Practice.
Trial report in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- 'A No-Brainer, but Not a Simple Decision': A Qualitative Study of Patient Experiences of Tissue Donation for Research in Rare Craniospinal Tumour Pathways.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Implementing broad consent for research with routinely collected clinical data and residual biosamples in a cancer hospital: using mixed methods approach to evaluate consent rates and patients' perspectives.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- From opt-out to opt-in consent for secondary use of medical data and residual biomaterial: An evaluation using the RE-AIM framework.PloS one · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite much debate, there is little evidence on consequences of consent procedures for residual tissue use. Here, we investigated these consequences for the availability of residual tissue for medical research, clinical practice, and patient informedness.
methodsWe conducted a randomised clinical trial with three arms in six hospitals. Participants, patients from whom tissue had been removed for diagnosis or treatment, were randomised to one of three arms: informed consent, an opt-out procedure with active information provision (opt-out plus), and an opt-out procedure without active information provision. Participants received a questionnaire six weeks post-intervention; a subsample of respondents was interviewed. Health care providers completed a pre- and post-intervention questionnaire. We assessed percentage of residual tissue samples available for medical research, and patient and health care provider satisfaction and preference. Health care providers and outcome assessors could not be blinded.
resultsWe randomised 1,319 patients, 440 in the informed consent, 434 in the opt-out plus, and 445 in the opt-out arm; respectively 60.7%, 100%, and 99.8% of patients' tissue samples could be used for medical research. Of the questionnaire respondents (N = 224, 207, and 214 in the informed consent, opt-out plus, and opt-out arms), 71%, 69%, and 31%, respectively, indicated being (very) well informed. By questionnaire, the majority (53%) indicated a preference for informed consent, whereas by interview, most indicated a preference for opt-out plus (37%). Health care providers (N = 35) were more likely to be (very) satisfied with opt-out plus than with informed consent (p = 0.002) or opt-out (p = 0.039); the majority (66%) preferred opt-out plus.
conclusionWe conclude that opt-out with information (opt-out plus) is the best choice to balance the consequences for medical research, patients, and clinical practice, and is therefore the most optimal consent procedure for residual tissue use in Dutch hospitals.
trial registrationDutch Trial Register NTR2982.
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.