Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27471590›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical ethics and history of medicine2016

Readability of informed consent forms in clinical trials conducted in a skin research center.

Aniseh Samadi, Fariba Asghari

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical ethics and history of medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Aniseh SamadiMD, Pharmaceutical, Cosmeceutical, and Hygienic Evaluation Lab (DermaLab), Center for Research and Training in Skin Diseases and Leprosy, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran;
Fariba AsghariAssociate Professor, Medical Ethics and History of Medicine Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Obtaining informed consents is one of the most fundamental principles in conducting a clinical trial. In order for the consent to be informed, the patient must receive and comprehend the information appropriately. Complexity of the consent form is a common problem that has been shown to be a major barrier to comprehension for many patients. The objective of this study was to assess the readability of different templates of informed consent forms (ICFs) used in clinical trials in the Center for Research and Training in Skin Diseases and Leprosy (CRTSDL), Tehran, Iran. This study was conducted on ICFs of 45 clinical trials of the CRTSDL affiliated with Tehran University of Medical Sciences. ICFs were tested for reading difficulty, using the readability assessments formula adjusted for the Persian language including the Flesch-Kincaid reading ease score, Flesch-Kincaid grade level, and Gunning fog index. Mean readability score of the whole text of ICFs as well as their 7 main information parts were calculated. The mean ± SD Flesch Reading Ease score for all ICFs was 31.96 ± 5.62 that is in the difficult range. The mean ± SD grade level was calculated as 10.71 ± 1.8 (8.23-14.09) using the Flesch-Kincaid formula and 14.64 ± 1.22 (12.67-18.27) using the Gunning fog index. These results indicate that the text is expected to be understandable for an average student in the 11(th) grade, while the ethics committee recommend grade level 8 as the standard readability level for ICFs. The results showed that the readability scores of ICFs assessed in our study were not in the acceptable range. This means they were too complex to be understood by the general population. Ethics committees must examine the simplicity and readability of ICFs used in clinical trials.

Indexed as

Clinical trialsInformed consentLiteracyReadability

Identifiers

PMID27471590
PMCPMC4958927

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.