Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28617695›Full record

ArticleCritical care medicine2017

An Alternative Consent Process for Minimal Risk Research in the ICU.

Melissa A Terry, Daniel E Freedberg, Marilyn C Morris

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

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

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

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Melissa A Terry1Department of Medicine, Division of Digestive and Liver Diseases, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY. 2Department of Pediatrics, Critical Care Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY.
Daniel E Freedberg
Marilyn C Morris

Funding

Loss of Gastrointestinal Colonization Resistance and Antibiotic-Resistant Infections in the Intensive Care UnitK23DK111847 · NIDDK · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI FREEDBERG, DANIEL E. · 2017 to 2020
$608k
NIDDK NIH HHS K23 DK111847
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesSeeking consent for minimal risk research in the ICU poses challenges, especially when the research is time-sensitive. Our aim was to determine the extent to which ICU patients or surrogates support a deferred consent process for a minimal risk study without the potential for direct benefit.

designProspective cohort study.

settingFive ICUs within a tertiary care hospital. PATIENTS: Newly admitted ICU patients 18 years old or older.

interventionsWe administered an eight-item verbal survey to patients or surrogates approached for consent to participate in a minimal risk, ICU-based study. The parent study involved noninvasive collection of biosamples and clinical data at the time of ICU admission and again 3 days later. If patients had capacity at the time of ICU admission, or if a surrogate was readily available, consent was sought prior to initial sample collection; otherwise, a waiver of consent was granted, and deferred consent was sought 3 days later. Quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN

resultsOne hundred fifty-seven individuals were approached for consent to participate in the parent study; none objected to the consent process. One hundred thirty-five of 157 (86%) competed the survey, including 94 who consented to the parent study and 41 who declined. Forty-four of 60 individuals (73%) approached for deferred consent responded positively to the question "Did we make the right choice in waiting until now to ask your consent?" three of 60 (5%) responded negatively, and 13 of 60 (22%) made a neutral or unrelated response. The most common reason given for endorsing the deferred consent process was the stress of the early ICU experience 25 of 44 (61%).

conclusionsMost patients and surrogates accept a deferred consent process for minimal risk research in the ICU. For appropriate ICU-based research, investigators and Institutional Review Boards should consider a deferred consent process if the subject lacks capacity and an appropriate surrogate is not readily available.

Indexed as

Research DesignAgedCross InfectionFemaleHumansInformed ConsentIntensive Care UnitsMaleMiddle AgedParentsPatientsProspective StudiesRiskStress, PsychologicalTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID28617695
PMCPMC5661876

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.