Guidance for ensuring fair and ethical broad consent for future use. A scoping review protocol.

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.

1. Analysis of compliance and language use in broad informed consent forms in international multicenter clinical trials after the implementation of the 2018 common rule.BMC medical ethics · 2026
   Article
2. "How about me giving blood for the COVID vaccine and not being able to get vaccinated?" A cognitive interview study on understanding of and agreement with broad consent for future use of data and samples in Colombia and Nicaragua.PLOS global public health · 2023
   Article
3. A cervical cancer biorepository for pharmacogenomics research in Zimbabwe.BMC cancer · 2022
   Article
4. A blank check or a global public good? A qualitative study of how ethics review committee members in Colombia weigh the risks and benefits of broad consent for data and sample sharing during a pandemic.PLOS global public health · 2022
   Article

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Funding

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as