ArticleJAMIA open2022
Article in JAMIA open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Development, implementation, and dissemination of operational innovations across the trial innovation network.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2023Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: To describe process innovations related to research informed consent documents, and development and formative evaluation of Materials and Methods: Analysis of Institutional Review Board workflows and documents, followed by process redesign, document redesign, and software development. Locally developed software leverages REDCap and LaTeX. A small-scale usability study was conducted. Results: Process innovations were combining document types, and conceptualizing 2-part informed consent documents: part 1 standardizing the study description and part 2 with local site verbiage. Discussion: The process changes were generally well accepted. The software implementation uncovered un-accounted for assumptions, and variability in IRB review workflow across centers. Technical modifications may be needed before widespread implementation. Conclusion: We demonstrated proof-of-concept of an approach to generate research consent documents that are consistent across sites in study description, but which allow for customization of local site verbiage. The
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.