ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2022
From paper to screen: regulatory and operational considerations for modernizing the informed consent process.
Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Closing the Gap to Interventions for Tuberous Sclerosis Complex-Associated Neuropsychiatric Disorders (TAND): Protocol for a Longitudinal Study of TAND Severity, Predictors, and Caregiver Well-Being (TANDem-2).JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Applying an Agile Science Roadmap to Integrate and Evaluate Ethical Frameworks Throughout the Lifecycle and Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools in the Intensive Care Unit.Critical care nursing clinics of North America · 2025Review
- Exploring knowledge and attitudes toward electronic informed consent among clinical trial participants in China: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- e-Consent in UK academic-led clinical trials: current practice, challenges and the need for more evidence.Trials · 2023Article
- Exploring the Relationship between Medical Research Literacy and Respondents' Expressed Likelihood to Participate in a Clinical Trial.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Electronic platforms provide an opportunity to improve the informed consent (IC) process by permitting elements shown to increase research participant understanding and satisfaction, such as graphics, self-pacing, meaningful engagement, and access to additional information on demand. However, including these elements can pose operational and regulatory challenges for study teams and institutional review boards (IRBs) responsible for the ethical conduct and oversight of research. We examined the experience of two study teams at Alzheimer's Disease Research Centers who chose to move from a paper-based IC process to an electronic informed consent (eIC) process to highlight some of these complexities and explore how IRBs and study teams can navigate them. Here, we identify the key regulations that should be considered when developing and using an eIC process as well as some of the operational considerations eIC presents related to IRB review and how they can be addressed.
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.