Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33653311›Full record

ReviewBMC medical ethics2021

Facing new challenges to informed consent processes in the context of translational research: the case in CARPEM consortium.

Elise Jacquier, Pierre Laurent-Puig, Cécile Badoual, Anita Burgun, Marie-France Mamzer

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC medical ethics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

5 authors.

Elise JacquierCentre de Recherche Des Cordeliers (UMRS 1138), INSERM, Sorbonne Université, Université de Paris, Team ETREs, 75006, Paris, France. elise.jacquier@etu.u-paris.fr.ORCID 0000-0003-3262-4304
Pierre Laurent-PuigCentre de Recherche Des Cordeliers (UMRS 1138), Team Personalized Medicine, INSERM, Sorbonne Université, Université de Paris, Pharmacogenomics and Therapeutic Optimization, 75006, Paris, France.
Cécile BadoualCentre de Ressources Biologiques, Service d'anatomo-pathologie, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, Assistance publique - Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France.
Anita BurgunDépartement D'informatique Médicale, de Biostatistique Et de Santé Publique, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, Assistance publique - Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France.
Marie-France MamzerCentre de Recherche Des Cordeliers (UMRS 1138), INSERM, Sorbonne Université, Université de Paris, Team ETREs, 75006, Paris, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the context of translational research, researchers have increasingly been using biological samples and data in fundamental research phases. To explore informed consent practices, we conducted a retrospective study on informed consent documents that were used for CARPEM's translational research programs. This review focused on detailing their form, their informational content, and the adequacy of these documents with the international ethical principles and participants' rights.

methodsInformed consent forms (ICFs) were collected from CARPEM investigators. A content analysis focused on information related to biological samples and data treatment (context of sampling and collect, aims, reuse, consent renewal), including the type of consent. An automatic assessment of the readability of the ICFs were performed with the IT program "Flesch Score".

results29 ICFs from 25 of 49 studies were analyzed after selection criteria were applied. Three types of consent were identified: 11 broad consents, six specific consents, and two opt-out consents. The Flesch Scores showed that most of the documents were too complex to be fully understood by most of the potential research participants. Most of the biological samples were collected during the healthcare routine, but the information content about secondary use of biological samples varied between ICFs. All documents mentioned personal data treatment but information about their reuse was not standardized in the ICFs.

conclusionsOur review of current IC procedures of CARPEM showed that practices could be improved considering new translational research methods. "Old fashion written ICFs" should be adapted to the translational research approach, to better respect individual rights and international research ethics principles. In this context, theoretically, a digital tool allowing dynamic information and consent of participants, through an electronic interactive platform may be a good way to promote more active participation in research. Nevertheless, its feasibility in the complex environment of biological samples and data research remains to prove. The way of a combination of a broad consent followed by dynamic information may be alternatively tested.

Indexed as

Consent FormsTranslational Research, BiomedicalComprehensionHumansInformed ConsentRetrospective StudiesBiobank researchDynamic consentInformed consentPartnership in researchPatient participationTranslational research

Identifiers

PMID33653311
PMCPMC7927247

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.