Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36810093›Full record

SynthesisTrials2023

Electronic informed consent: effects on enrolment, practical and economic benefits, challenges, and drawbacks-a systematic review of studies within randomized controlled trials.

Ana Teresita Mazzochi, Martin Dennis, Ho-Yan Yvonne Chun

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Trials, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
8.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Decentralized Clinical Trials in Early Drug Development-A Framework Proposal.Journal of immunotherapy and precision oncology · 2024
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ana Teresita MazzochiUsher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Old Medical School, Teviot Place, Edinburgh, EH8 9AG, UK. teremazzochi@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2117-6112
Martin DennisCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Ho-Yan Yvonne ChunCentre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
University of Edinburgh · GBThe Queen's Medical Research Institute · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEnrolment is one of the most challenging aspects of conducting clinical trials, preceded by the process of informed consent (IC). Different strategies to improve recruitment in clinical trials have been used, including electronic IC. During COVID-19 pandemic, barriers to enrolment have been evident. Although digital technologies were acknowledged as the future of clinical research and potential advantages were shown for recruitment, electronic informed consent (e-IC) has not yet been globally adopted. The purpose of this review is to investigate the effect of using e-IC on enrolment, practical and economic benefits, challenges, and drawbacks when compared to traditional informed consent, through a systematic review.

methodsEmbase, Global Health Library, Medline, and The Cochrane Library databases were searched. No limit was set for publication date, age, sex, or study design. We included all studies within a randomized controlled trial (RCT), published in English, Chinese or Spanish, evaluating the electronic consent process used in the parent RCT. Studies were included if any of the three components ((i) information provision, (ii) participant's comprehension, (iii) signature) of the IC process was designed as electronic, whether administered remotely or face-to-face. The primary outcome was the rate of enrolment to the parent trial. Secondary outcomes were summarized according to the various findings reported on the use of electronic consent.

resultsFrom a total of 9069 titles, 12 studies were included in the final analysis with a total of 8864 participants. Five studies of high heterogeneity and risk of bias showed mixed results on the efficacy of e-IC on enrolment. Data of included studies suggested e-IC could improve comprehension and recall of study-related information. Meta-analysis could not be conducted due to different study designs and outcome measures and the predominantly qualitative findings.

conclusionFew published studies have investigated the impact of e-IC on enrolment and findings were mixed. e-IC may improve participant's comprehension and recall of information. High-quality studies are needed to evaluate the potential benefit of e-IC to increase clinical trial enrolment.

trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42021231035 . Registration date: 19-Feb-2021.

Indexed as

COVID-19ComprehensionElectronicsHumansInformed ConsentRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicElectronic informed consentEnrollmentRandomized controlled trialsSWATSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID36810093
PMCPMC9942032
OpenAlexW4321455248

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.