Trial reportAmerican journal of perinatology2024
Video-Assisted Informed Consent in a Clinical Trial of Resuscitation of Extremely Preterm Infants: Lessons Learned.
Trial report in American journal of perinatology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ventilatory Assistance Before Umbilical Cord Clamping in Extremely Preterm Infants: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2024Trial
- Comparing video-assisted and verbal explanations in Japanese hospital dentistry: patient evaluations in third molar extraction and medical-dental collaborative care.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Is there an impact of a video-based patient informed consent in elective hand surgery?Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveObtaining informed consent for clinical trials is challenging in acute clinical settings. For the VentFirst randomized clinical trial (assisting ventilation during delayed cord clamping for infants <29 weeks' gestation), we created an informational video that sites could choose to use to supplement the standard in-person verbal and written consent. Using a postconsent survey, we sought to describe the impact of the video on patient recruitment, satisfaction with the consent process, and knowledge about the study. STUDY
designThis is a descriptive survey-based substudy.
resultsOf the sites participating in the VentFirst trial that obtained institutional review board (IRB) approval to allow use of the video to supplement the standard informed consent process, three elected to participate in the survey substudy. From February 2018 to January 2021, 82 women at these three sites were offered the video and completed the postconsent survey. Overall, 73 of these 82 women (89%) consented to participate in the primary study, 78 (95%) indicated the study was explained to them very well or extremely well, and the range of correct answers on five knowledge questions about the study was 63 to 98%. Forty-six (56%) of the 82 women offered the video chose to watch it. There were no major differences in study participation, satisfaction with the consent process, or knowledge about the study between the women who chose to watch or not watch the video.
conclusionWatching an optional video to supplement the standard informed consent process did not have a major impact on outcomes in this small substudy. The ways in which audiovisual tools might modify the traditional informed consent process deserve further study. KEY POINTS: · Informed consent in acute clinical contexts is difficult.. · Videos offer an alternative communication tool.. · Continued research is necessary to optimize the consent process..
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.