Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28828304›Full record

ReviewPerspectives in clinical research

Informed consent process: A step further towards making it meaningful!

Rashmi Ashish Kadam

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Perspectives in clinical research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05195671 (Implications of Ethics Determinant on Dentistry and Pharmacy Research), which is not on this map. Cited by 111 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
111citing papers in PubMed, 3 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.

NCT05195671 completednot on this map

Implications of Ethics Determinant on Dentistry and Pharmacy Research: A Study of IRB Perspective

TypeobservationalSponsorMisr International UniversityRan2021 to 2021Enrolled131ConditionsReview, Research PeerArmsReview
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

111 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Considering the caregiver in early-phase clinical trials: a review of trial protocols and consent forms.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

51 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

1 author.

Rashmi Ashish KadamQuality Assurance Manager, Chest Research Foundation, Pune, Maharashtra, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Informed consent process is the cornerstone of ethics in clinical research. Obtaining informed consent from patients participating in clinical research is an important legal and ethical imperative for clinical trial researchers. Although informed consent is an important process in clinical research, its effectiveness and validity are always a concern. Issues related to understanding, comprehension, competence, and voluntariness of clinical trial participants may adversely affect the informed consent process. Communication of highly technical, complex, and specialized clinical trial information to participants with limited literacy, diverse sociocultural background, diminished autonomy, and debilitating diseases is a difficult task for clinical researchers. It is therefore essential to investigate and adopt innovative communication strategies to enhance understanding of clinical trial information among participants. This review article visits the challenges that affect the informed consent process and explores various innovative strategies to enhance the consent process.

Indexed as

Clinical trialscompetencecomprehensioninformed consentstrategiesunderstanding

Identifiers

PMID28828304
PMCPMC5543760

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

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.