ArticleCritical care medicine2017
An Alternative Consent Process for Minimal Risk Research in the ICU.
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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Views on consent approaches used in emergency and critical care research: a rapid, systematic review.Trials · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Proxy decision-making about participation in palliative care research: A scoping review.Palliative medicine · 2026Article
- Review
- Attitudes of patients and family members towards deferred and waived consent in ECPR research, an ancillary study of the INCEPTION trial.Resuscitation plus · 2026Article
- Research progress in agitation early warning monitoring and new technologies for critically ill patients: a narrative review.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Timing and clinical risk factors for early acquisition of gut pathogen colonization with multidrug resistant organisms in the intensive care unit.Gut pathogens · 2024Article
- Article
- Associations between urinary 3-indoxyl sulfate, a gut microbiome-derived biomarker, and patient outcomes after intensive care unit admission.Journal of critical care · 2021Article
- The effect of short-course antibiotics on the resistance profile of colonizing gut bacteria in the ICU: a prospective cohort study.Critical care (London, England) · 2020Article
- Relationship Between Dietary Fiber Intake and Short-Chain Fatty Acid-Producing Bacteria During Critical Illness: A Prospective Cohort Study.JPEN. Journal of parenteral and enteral nutrition · 2020Article
- The Attitudes of Relatives of ICU Patients toward Informed Consent for Clinical Research.Critical care research and practice · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
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
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.