Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28122615›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2017

Dynamic Consent: a potential solution to some of the challenges of modern biomedical research.

Isabelle Budin-Ljøsne, Harriet J A Teare, Jane Kaye, Stephan Beck, Heidi Beate Bentzen, Luciana Caenazzo, Clive Collett, Flavio D'Abramo, Heike Felzmann, Teresa Finlay and 5 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 148 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
148citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

148 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Organoids: a systematic review of ethical issues.Stem cell research & therapy · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Multi-scale digital twins for personalized medicine.Frontiers in digital health · 2026
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

88 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

15 authors.

Isabelle Budin-LjøsneCentre for Medical Ethics, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Blindern, P.O. Box 1130, NO-0318, Oslo, Norway. i.b.ljosne@medisin.uio.no.
Harriet J A TeareCentre for Health, Law and Emerging Technologies (HeLEX), Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Jane KayeCentre for Health, Law and Emerging Technologies (HeLEX), Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Stephan BeckUCL Cancer Institute, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Heidi Beate BentzenCentre for Medical Ethics, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Blindern, P.O. Box 1130, NO-0318, Oslo, Norway.
Luciana CaenazzoUniversità degli Studi di Padova, Padova, Italy.
Clive CollettHealth Research Authority, London, United Kingdom.
Flavio D'AbramoFocus Area DynAge, Freie Universität, Berlin, Germany.
Heike FelzmannCentre of Bioethical Research & Analysis, NUI Galway, Galway, Ireland.
Teresa FinlayCentre for Health, Law and Emerging Technologies (HeLEX), Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Muhammad Kassim JavaidNIHR Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Erica JonesUCL Cancer Institute, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Višnja KatićSchool of Medicine, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia.
Amy SimpsonGenetic Alliance UK, London, United Kingdom.
Deborah MascalzoniCentre for Research Ethics and Bioethics, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 096599/2/11/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInnovations in technology have contributed to rapid changes in the way that modern biomedical research is carried out. Researchers are increasingly required to endorse adaptive and flexible approaches to accommodate these innovations and comply with ethical, legal and regulatory requirements. This paper explores how Dynamic Consent may provide solutions to address challenges encountered when researchers invite individuals to participate in research and follow them up over time in a continuously changing environment.

methodsAn interdisciplinary workshop jointly organised by the University of Oxford and the COST Action CHIP ME gathered clinicians, researchers, ethicists, lawyers, research participants and patient representatives to discuss experiences of using Dynamic Consent, and how such use may facilitate the conduct of specific research tasks. The data collected during the workshop were analysed using a content analysis approach.

resultsDynamic Consent can provide practical, sustainable and future-proof solutions to challenges related to participant recruitment, the attainment of informed consent, participant retention and consent management, and may bring economic efficiencies.

conclusionsDynamic Consent offers opportunities for ongoing communication between researchers and research participants that can positively impact research. Dynamic Consent supports inter-sector, cross-border approaches and large scale data-sharing. Whilst it is relatively easy to set up and maintain, its implementation will require that researchers re-consider their relationship with research participants and adopt new procedures.

Indexed as

Informed ConsentProfessional-Patient RelationsBiomedical ResearchCommunicationData CollectionEthics, ResearchFollow-Up StudiesHumansInformation DisseminationPatient SelectionResearch DesignResearch PersonnelResearch SubjectsBiobankClinical researchClinical trialsDynamic consentEthicsParticipant engagementResearch communicationSoftware tools

Identifiers

PMID28122615
PMCPMC5264333

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.