ArticleBMJ open2023
Advance consent for participation in randomised controlled trials for emergency conditions: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring Perceived Barriers and Facilitators for Implementing Acute Pain Clinical Trials: A Mixed-Methods Analysis of Ketamine Infusions for Sickle Cell Pain.Journal of pain research · 2025Article
- 'It's not making a decision, it's prompting the discussions': a qualitative study exploring stakeholders' views on the acceptability and feasibility of advance research planning (CONSULT-ADVANCE).BMC medical ethics · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveAdvance consent is a recognised method of obtaining informed consent for participation in research, whereby a potential participant provides consent for future involvement in a study contingent on qualifying for the study's inclusion criteria on a later date. The goal of this study is to map the existing literature on the use of advance consent for enrolment in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for emergency conditions.
designScoping review designed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. DATA SOURCES: We searched electronic databases including MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Register of Clinical Trials from inception to 10 February 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Eligible studies included articles that discussed or employed the use of advance consent for enrolment in RCTs related to emergency conditions. There were no restrictions on the type of eligible study. Data were extracted directly from included papers using a standardised data charting form. We produced a narrative review including article type and authors' dispositions towards advance consent.
resultsOur search yielded 1039 titles with duplicates removed. Six articles met inclusion criteria. Three articles discussed the theoretical use of research advance directives in emergency conditions; one article evaluated stakeholders' perceptions of advance consent; and one article described a method for patients to document their preferences for participation in future research. Only one study employed advance consent to enrol participants into a clinical trial for an emergency condition.
conclusionOur review demonstrates that there has been minimal exploration of advance consent for enrolment in RCTs for emergency conditions. Future studies could aim to assess the acceptability of advance consent to participants, along with the feasibility of enrolling research participants using this method of consent. PROTOCOL: The protocol for this scoping review was published a priori.
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.