Trial reportJournal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE2016
Getting It "Right".
Trial report in Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Readability of informed consent forms from ClinicalTrials.gov in ketamine clinical trials for mental health conditions: a cross-sectional analysis.Therapeutic advances in psychopharmacology · 2026Article
- Men living through multiple miscarriages: protocol for a qualitative exploration of experiences and support requirements.BMJ open · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Ethical principles in conducting technology-based research require effective and efficient methods of ensuring adequate informed consent. This study examined how well participants understood the informed consent form for an online postpartum depression trial. Pregnant women ( N = 1,179) who consented to the trial demonstrated an understanding of the purpose (86.1%) and procedures of the study (75.8%), and the minimal risks associated with answering sensitive questions online (79%). Almost all (99.6%) understood that psychological treatment was not offered. Participants with current depression incorrectly indicated that participation would replace current psychological treatment relative to participants with a lifetime or no depression history (19.6% vs. 13.5 % vs. 10.4%, respectively) and that there were no associated risks with participation (29.6% vs.17.6% vs. 16.7%, respectively). Findings provide initial evidence that most individuals who seek online psychological resources are informed consumers.
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.