Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36414962›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2022

Electronic informed consent criteria for research ethics review: a scoping review.

Mohd Yusmiaidil Putera Mohd Yusof, Chin Hai Teo, Chirk Jenn Ng

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Integrating a conceptual consent permission model from the informed consent ontology for software application execution.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Decentralized Clinical Trials in Early Drug Development-A Framework Proposal.Journal of immunotherapy and precision oncology · 2024
    Review
  12. Observational
  13. Narrative review of telemedicine applications in decentralized research.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2024
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Informed Consent: Legal Obligation or Cornerstone of the Care Relationship?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  18. 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

3 authors.

Mohd Yusmiaidil Putera Mohd YusofCentre of Oral & Maxillofacial Diagnostics and Medicine Studies, Faculty of Dentistry, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Sungai Buloh Campus, 47000, Sungai Buloh, Selangor, Malaysia. yusmiaidil@uitm.edu.my.ORCID 0000-0002-5676-3571
Chin Hai TeoUM eHealth Unit, Faculty of Medicine, Universiti Malaya, 50603, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Chirk Jenn NgDepartment of Primary Care Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Universiti Malaya, 50603, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Funding

Strengthening the Master of Health Research Ethics Training ProgramR25TW010891 · FIC · UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA · PI Nik Sherina Hanafi, Adeeba Kamarulzaman · 2018 to 2026
$2.3M
FIC NIH HHS R25 TW010891
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe research shows a growing trend in using an electronic platform to supplement or replace traditional paper-based informed consent processes. Instead of the traditionally written informed consent document, electronic informed consent (eConsent) may be used to assess the research subject's comprehension of the information presented. By doing so, respect for persons as one of the research ethical principles can be upheld. Furthermore, these electronic methods may reduce potential airborne infection exposures, particularly during the pandemic, thereby adhering to the beneficence and nonmaleficence principle. This scoping review aims to identify the ethics related criteria that have been included in electronic informed consent processes and to synthesize and map these criteria to research ethics principles, in order to identify the gaps, if any, in current electronic informed consent processes.

methodsThe search was performed based on internet search and three main databases: PubMed, SCOPUS and EBSCO. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation guideline was used to report this work.

resultsOf 34 studies that met the inclusion criteria, 242 essential original constructs were collated, and 7 concepts were derived. Digital content showed the highest percentage of collated original constructs (27%, n = 65) followed by accessibility (24%, n = 56), comprehension engagement (18%, n = 43), autonomy (14%, n = 34), confidentiality (11%, n = 25), language (5%, n = 13), and parental consent (1%, n = 2). Twenty-five new items were synthesized for eConsent criteria which may provide guidance for ethical review of research involving eConsent.

conclusionThe current study adds significant value to the corpus of knowledge in research ethics by providing ethical criteria on electronic informed consent based on evidence-based data. The new synthesized items in the criteria can be readily used as an initial guide by the IRB/REC members during a review process on electronic informed consent and useful to the future preparation of a checklist.

Indexed as

Ethics, ResearchInformed ConsentBeneficenceConsent FormsElectronicsHumansAutonomyElectronic informed consentInstitutional review boardResearch ethics committee

Identifiers

PMID36414962
PMCPMC9682656

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.