Trial reportBrain and behavior2021
Informed consent in critically ill adults participating to a randomized trial.
Trial report in Brain and behavior, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Unreactive EEG Background Is Associated With Unfavorable Outcome in Patients With Disorders of Consciousness of Various Etiologies: An Adult Cohort Study.European journal of neurology · 2025Trial
- Informed consent in critically ill adults participating to a randomized trial.Brain and behavior · 2021Trial
- Review
- Patient and public involvement and engagement in critical care research in low and middle-income countries: challenges and solutions.Critical care science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe 2014 update of the Swiss law on research increases patients' protection; it adds specific requirements for emergency situations, implying an active search for patients' wishes regarding research participation; the possibility of consent waivers is not clearly stated. We explored its practical impact in a RCT on critically ill adults.
methodsWe considered prospectively collected consents of a multicenter trial addressing the impact of continuous EEG on survival. We assessed the proportions of consents obtained strictly according to the law, of specific waivers for this study obtained from the IRB (early death; relatives' unavailability despite repeated attempts), and the yield of retrieving statements on willingness to research participation. We compared the proportion of consent refusals with those of recent trials in similar environments, and estimated the potential impact on study results.
resultsOf 402 recruited patients, six had double inclusions, one died before intervention, and 27 (6.7%, alive on long-term) were excluded following consent refusal or withdrawal, leaving 368 analyzable patients. Specific waivers allowed inclusion of 134 (36.4%) patients, while informed consents were obtained for all others. A statement of willingness to research participation was found in only 14.1%. In recent trials, consent refusal oscillated between 0%-23%, according to different waiver policies.
conclusionsConsent waivers should be specifically foreseen to prevent losing a potentially relevant proportion of patients reaching endpoints, and ensure results generalizability. The yield of looking for willingness to research participation seems low; this questions its current usefulness and calls for a public awareness campaign.
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.