ArticleThe European journal of cardiovascular medicine2016
Refining the Enrolment Process in Emergency Medicine Research.
Article in The European journal of cardiovascular medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dynamic changes in injured myocardium, very early after acute myocardial infarction, quantified using T1 mapping cardiovascular magnetic resonance.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2018Article
- Metabolomic Profiling in Acute ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Identifies Succinate as an Early Marker of Human Ischemia-Reperfusion Injury.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2018Article
- Review
- Written versus verbal consent: a qualitative study of stakeholder views of consent procedures used at the time of recruitment into a peripartum trial conducted in an emergency setting.BMC medical ethics · 2017Article
- The Misguided Regulation of Cardiac Emergencies: The Rise of the IRB-Industrial Complex and the Increasing Risk to Cardiovascular Research and Our Patients.Circulation research · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Research in the emergency setting involving patients with acute clinical conditions is needed if there are to be advances in diagnosis and treatment. But research in these areas poses ethical and practical challenges. One of these is the general inability to obtain informed consent due to the patient's lack of mental capacity and insufficient time to contact legal representatives. Regulatory frameworks which allow this research to proceed with a consent 'waiver', provided patients lack mental capacity, miss important ethical subtleties. One of these is the varying nature of mental capacity among emergency medicine patients. Not only is their capacity variable and often unclear, but some patients are also likely to be able to engage with the researcher and the context to varying degrees. In this paper we describe the key elements of a novel enrolment process for emergency medicine research that refines the consent waiver and fully engages with the ethical rationale for consent and, in this context, its waiver. The process is verbal but independently documented during the 'emergent' stages of the research. It provides appropriate engagement with the patient, is context-sensitive and better addresses ethical subtleties. In line with regulation, full written consent for on-going participation in the research is obtained once the emergency is passed.
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.