Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34521663›Full record

ReviewBMJ open2021

Reconsidering 'minimal risk' to expand the repertoire of trials with waiver of informed consent for research.

Paul A Monach, Westyn Branch-Elliman

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

2 authors.

Paul A MonachRheumatology Section, VA Boston Health Care System Jamaica Plain Campus, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4937-0515
Westyn Branch-EllimanInfectious Diseases Section, VA Boston Health Care System West Roxbury Campus, West Roxbury, Massachusetts, USA wbranche@bidmc.harvard.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-9658-5124

Funding

VCRC-VF FellowshipU54AR057319 · NIAMS · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI MERKEL, PETER A · 2009 to 2020
$12.5M
K12 Cardiopulmonary Implementation Science Scholars ProgramK12HL138049 · NHLBI · UNIV OF MASSACHUSETTS MED SCH WORCESTER · PI LEMON, STEPHENIE C., LINDENAUER, PETER KYLE · 2017 to 2021
$2.7M
NHLBI NIH HHS K12 HL138049NIAMS NIH HHS U54 AR057319
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProgress in therapeutic research is slowed by the regulatory burden of clinical trials, which provide the best evidence for guiding treatment. There is a long delay from evidence generation to adoption, highlighting the need for designs that link evidence generation to implementation.

objectiveTo identify clinical trial designs that confer minimal risk above that inherent in clinical care, to obviate the need for cumbersome consenting processes to enrol patients in prospective clinical research studies. These designs extend the scope of the Learning Healthcare System, a framework for leveraging retrospective 'big data' to advance clinical research, to include data collected from prospective controlled trials. SUMMARY: Pragmatic trials may use simplified eligibility criteria, unblinded interventions and objective outcome measures that can all be monitored through the electronic health records (EHR), to reduce costs and speed study conduct. Most pragmatic trials continue to suffer from substantial regulatory burden. Written consent to participate in research can be waived only if the research produces minimal risk above what is encountered in everyday life. However, the 'consent' processes for prescribing Federal Drug Administration-approved medications in clinical medicine are informal, even when they involve decisions of uncertain benefit and higher levels of risk. We propose that trial designs that mimic clinical decision-making in areas of uncertainty (clinical equipoise) and in which no data are generated outside of usual care (ideally by EHR embedding) confer minimal additional risk. Trial designs meeting this standard could, therefore, be conducted with minimal documentation of consent, even when interventions contain different risks. To align with risk encountered in clinical practice, allocation to treatment arms should change (adaptive randomisation) as data are collected and analysed. Embedding of informatics tools into the EHR has the additional benefit that, as adaptive randomisation progresses, evidence-generation transitions into implementation via decision-support tools-the ultimate realisation of the Learning Healthcare System.

Indexed as

Informed ConsentTherapeutic Human ExperimentationElectronic Health RecordsHumansProspective StudiesRetrospective Studiesclinical trialsethics (see medical ethics)statistics & research methods

Identifiers

PMID34521663
PMCPMC8442055

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.