ArticleAJOB empirical bioethics2015
Evaluation of the Informed Consent Process of a Multicenter Tuberculosis Treatment Trial.
Article in AJOB empirical bioethics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Measuring and evaluating participant understanding of consent processes in clinical trials: a systematic review.Trials · 2026Pooled it
- Beyond translations, perspectives for researchers to consider to enhance comprehension during consent processes for health research in sub-saharan Africa: a scoping review.BMC medical ethics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEthical principles obligate researchers to maximize study participants' comprehension during the informed consent process for clinical trials. A pilot evaluation of the consent process was conducted during an international clinical trial of treatment for pulmonary tuberculosis to assess the feasibility of conducting an evaluation in a larger population and to guide these future efforts.
methodsStudy staff administered an informed consent assessment tool (ICAT) to a convenience sample of trial participants, measuring comprehension of consent components as derived from the Common Rule and FDA Title 21 Part 50, and satisfaction with the process. Participating site staff completed a consent process questionnaire about consent practices at their respective sites and provided improvement recommendations. ICAT scores and corresponding practices were compared where both were completed.
resultsICATs (
conclusionsParticipants achieved high levels (≥80%) of comprehension and satisfaction with their current consent processes. Higher ICAT scores at one site suggest an additional evaluation may identify approaches to improve comprehension and satisfaction in future trials. Through this pilot evaluation, complexities and challenges were identified in obtaining consent in a large, international multicenter trial and provided insights for a more robust assessment of the consent process in future trials.
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.