Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32862140›Full record

ArticleEmergency medicine journal : EMJ2021

Seven-step framework to enhance practitioner explanations and parental understandings of research without prior consent in paediatric emergency and critical care trials.

Louise Roper, Mark D Lyttle, Carrol Gamble, Amy Humphreys, Shrouk Messahel, Elizabeth D Lee, Joanne Noblet, Helen Hickey, Naomi Rainford, Anand Iyer and 2 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Emergency medicine journal : EMJ, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Louise RoperInstitute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Mark D LyttleEmergency Department, Bristol Royal Children's Hospital, Bristol, UK.
Carrol GambleClinical Trials Research Centre (CTRC), University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Amy HumphreysClinical Trials Research Centre (CTRC), University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Shrouk MessahelEmergency Department, Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, Merseyside, UK.
Elizabeth D LeeEmergency Department, Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, Merseyside, UK.
Joanne NobletEmergency Department, Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, Merseyside, UK.
Helen HickeyClinical Trials Research Centre (CTRC), University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Naomi RainfordClinical Trials Research Centre (CTRC), University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Anand IyerDepartment of Neurology, Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, Merseyside, UK.
Richard AppletonDepartment of Neurology, Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, Merseyside, UK.
Kerry WoolfallInstitute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK k.woolfall@liverpool.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5726-5304
University of Liverpool · GBAlder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of the West of England · GB

Funding

Department of Health 12/127/134
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlternatives to prospective informed consent enable the conduct of paediatric emergency and critical care trials. Research without prior consent (RWPC) involves practitioners approaching parents after an intervention has been given and seeking consent for their child to continue in the trial. As part of an embedded study in the 'Emergency treatment with Levetiracetam or Phenytoin in Status Epilepticus in children' (EcLiPSE) trial, we explored how practitioners described the trial and RWPC during recruitment discussions, and how well this information was understood by parents. We aimed to develop a framework to assist trial conversations in future paediatric emergency and critical care trials using RWPC.

methodsQualitative methods embedded within the EcLiPSE trial processes, including audiorecorded practitioner-parent trial discussions and telephone interviews with parents. We analysed data using thematic analysis, drawing on the Realpe

resultsWe analysed 76 recorded trial discussions and conducted 30 parent telephone interviews. For 19 parents, we had recorded trial discussion and interview data, which were matched for analysis. Parental understanding of the EcLiPSE trial was enhanced when practitioners: provided a comprehensive description of trial aims; explained the reasons for RWPC; discussed uncertainty about which intervention was best; provided a balanced description of trial intervention; provided a clear explanation about randomisation and provided an opportunity for questions. We present a seven-step framework to assist recruitment practice in trials involving RWPC.

conclusionThis study provides a framework to enhance recruitment practice and parental understanding in paediatric emergency and critical care trials involving RWPC. Further testing of this framework is required.

Indexed as

Critical CareEmergency Service, HospitalRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignAnticonvulsantsChildData CollectionEnglandFemaleHumansInformed ConsentLevetiracetamMaleMulticenter Studies as TopicParentsPhenytoinAnticonvulsantsLevetiracetamPhenytoinpaediatric emergency medqualitative researchresearch, clinicalresearch, methods

Identifiers

PMID32862140
PMCPMC7907554
OpenAlexW3082969526

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.