Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31890222›Full record

ArticleJournal of intensive care2019

Parental opinions regarding consent for observational research of no or minimal risk in the pediatric intensive care unit.

Jessica Hodson, Christiana Garros, Jodie Jensen, Jonathan P Duff, Gonzalo Garcia Guerra, Ari R Joffe

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of intensive care, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact, top 75% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jessica Hodson1Division of Pediatric Critical Care Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Stollery Children's Hospital and University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta Canada.
Christiana Garros1Division of Pediatric Critical Care Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Stollery Children's Hospital and University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta Canada.
Jodie Jensen1Division of Pediatric Critical Care Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Stollery Children's Hospital and University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta Canada.
Jonathan P Duff1Division of Pediatric Critical Care Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Stollery Children's Hospital and University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta Canada.
Gonzalo Garcia Guerra1Division of Pediatric Critical Care Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Stollery Children's Hospital and University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta Canada.
Ari R Joffe1Division of Pediatric Critical Care Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Stollery Children's Hospital and University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta Canada.
Stollery Children's Hospital · CAAlberta Hospital Edmonton · CAUniversity of Alberta · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of the study was to determine opinions and knowledge regarding the process of obtaining informed consent to participate in observational research in pediatric intensive care.

methodsSurvey 1 asked decision makers what model(s) of consent was acceptable for each type of observational research both before and after background information. Survey 2 asked decision makers about the experience of being asked for consent to observational research, and knowledge regarding the consent process both before and after background information.

resultsCooperation rate was 100/117 (85%). The proportion in favor of any of the offered alternatives to signed informed consent for observational research, after receiving all the background information, was 74-80%, lowest for observational prospective research with a minimal risk intervention 37/50 (74%; 95% CI 60-84%). The proportion who agreed they felt overwhelmed by being approached for consent to observational research was 26 (52%; 95% CI 39-65%). Most respondents (from 60 to 74%) felt they understood the concepts regarding observational research; however, after reading background information, most (from 60 to 74%) felt their understanding had improved "a great deal".

conclusionUnderstanding of risk, practical difficulties, consent bias, and Research Ethics Board safeguards was poor. Future study is needed to confirm our finding that most agreed with alternative methods of consent for observational research.

Indexed as

ConsentObservational researchPediatric intensive care unitSurvey

Identifiers

PMID31890222
PMCPMC6916229
OpenAlexW2995701083

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.