ArticleFrontiers in medicine2022
Patients' knowledge about their involvement in clinical trials. A non-randomized controlled trial.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Measuring and evaluating participant understanding of consent processes in clinical trials: a systematic review.Trials · 2026Pooled it
- Trial Participation in Neurodegenerative Diseases: Barriers and Facilitators: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Neurology · 2024Pooled it
- Improving Patient Engagement in Phase 2 Clinical Trials With a Trial-Specific Patient Decision Aid: Development and Usability Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- The use of large language models to enhance cancer clinical trial educational materials.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Nowadays, good clinical practice should be established in human research. Patient's rights and autonomy must be respected above the interest of the researcher, making mandatory to raise patient's awareness on the implications of participating in a clinical study. Contrary to popular belief, this is not always the case. This means that, after signing the informed consent form, some patients have difficulties understanding their responsibilities as participants. Materials and methods: This study is a prospective, multicenter, non-randomized controlled trial comparative survey conducted on patients enrolled in a clinical trial to evaluate and improve their understanding after an educational intervention was applied to the research staff. Results: Females were underrepresented in the clinical trials performed in this study, 21.5%. Most of the participants had a low educational level (74.4%). Around 5 and 10% of the research participants were not aware they were part of a clinical study, and more 24% just trusted in the medical decision to be enrolled. After the interventional education, the following items: "given time and resolution of the patient doubts" ( Conclusion: The research participants understanding of their involvement in clinical trials is limited. An educational intervention on the research team can improve the process of empowerment and transit of information.
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.