ArticleJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2019
The quality of consent form structure in biomedical research: a study from Jordan and Sudan.
Article in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Enhancing the ethical conduct of a longitudinal cluster-randomized trial of psychosocial stimulation intervention for children with complicated severe acute malnutrition through Rapid Ethical Assessment: a qualitative study.BMC medical ethics · 2021Trial
- Research mentorship in graduate programs in a developing country: An ethical perspective.Social sciences & humanities open · 2026Article
- Women's perceptions of placenta donation for research purposes: a cross-sectional study from the MENA region.Philosophy, ethics, and humanities in medicine : PEHM · 2026Article
- Readability of health research informed consent forms: case of the National Health Research Ethics Committee in Tanzania.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Attitude towards donation of the excised foreskin after circumcision surgery for research: A study from Madinah, Saudi Arabia.PloS one · 2023Article
- Ethical Considerations in Clinical Trials for Disorders of Consciousness.Brain sciences · 2022Article
- Motivators and barriers towards clinical research participation: A population-based survey from an Arab MENA country.PloS one · 2022Article
- Sharing, reuse, and storage of biosamples among biomedical researchers in Jordan: Practice and concerns.PloS one · 2022Article
- Article
- Informed Consent Form Challenges for Genetic Research in Jordan.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInformed consent is one of the primary standards of ethical clinical research. This study assessed the quality of the informed consent forms (ICF) utilized in medical research conducted in Sudan and Jordan. SUBJECTS AND
methodsA total of 435 studies that were performed at health sciences schools in Jordan and Sudan were initially screened for the presence of ICF. Of these, 189 studies were reviewed for the major components of ICF using a standard checklist.
resultsThe majority of the reviewed ICFs did not achieve the full standards of the universal guidelines for the informed consent structure. The following elements were described in >50% of consent forms reviewed from both countries: study title, objectives, research investigators, description of study procedure, and confidentiality. Other essential elements such as duration of the subject's participation, risks/benefits, compensation, voluntary participation, and contact information were poorly described.
conclusionThe major elements of ICFs were not adequately described in medical research studies from Jordan and Sudan. Improved understanding of major elements of ICF among researchers in the examined countries is necessary. Clear and informative consent template can be very valuable in this perspective.
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.