ArticleEFORT open reviews2020
A review of informed consent and how it has evolved to protect vulnerable participants in emergency care research.
Article in EFORT open reviews, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Toward equitable digital health: an integrated framework addressing exclusion, ethics, and implementation across healthcare systems.International journal for equity in health · 2026Review
- Patient and Public involvement to understand and inform the co-design of how we communicate mortality risk for patients aged 90 and over considering elective total hip replacement (THR).Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Improving prehospital and emergency care for patients with mental dysregulation: a comprehensive research agenda.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2026Article
- An assessment of synthetic data generation, use and disclosure under Canadian privacy regulations.AI and ethics · 2025Article
- Observing resuscitative practice. A novice researcher's experience of obtaining ethics approval.Nursing ethicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A vulnerable participant in research lacks capacity to consent or may be exposed to coercion to participate. Capacity may be temporarily impaired due to loss of consciousness, hypoxia, pain and the consumption of alcohol or elicit substances.To advance emergency care, providing life-threatening measures in life-threatening circumstances, vulnerable patients are recruited into research studies. The urgent need for time-critical treatment conflicts with routine informed consent procedures.This article reviews ethical considerations and moral obligations to safeguard these participants and preserve their autonomy.A particular focus is given to research methodology to waive consent, and the role of ethics committees, research audits, research nurses and community engagement.Research on the acutely unwell patient who lacks capacity is possible with well-designed research trials that are led by investigators who are sufficiently trained, engage the community, gain ethical approval to waive consent and continuously audit practice. Cite this article:
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.