Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37087415›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2023

Asking informed consent may lead to significant participation bias and suboptimal cardiovascular risk management in learning healthcare systems.

Anna G M Zondag, T Katrien J Groenhof, Rieke van der Graaf, Wouter W van Solinge, Michiel L Bots, Saskia Haitjema, UCC-CVRM study group

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Anna G M ZondagCentral Diagnostic Laboratory, Division of Laboratories, Pharmacy and Biomedical Genetics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands. a.g.m.zondag@umcutrecht.nl.
T Katrien J GroenhofDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, St. Antonius Hospital, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Rieke van der GraafJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Wouter W van SolingeCentral Diagnostic Laboratory, Division of Laboratories, Pharmacy and Biomedical Genetics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Michiel L BotsJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Saskia HaitjemaCentral Diagnostic Laboratory, Division of Laboratories, Pharmacy and Biomedical Genetics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
UCC-CVRM study group
Utrecht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Utrecht Cardiovascular Cohort - CardioVascular Risk Management (UCC-CVRM) was set up as a learning healthcare system (LHS), aiming at guideline based cardiovascular risk factor measurement in all patients in routine clinical care. However, not all patients provided informed consent, which may lead to participation bias. We aimed to study participation bias in a LHS by assessing differences in and completeness of cardiovascular risk management (CVRM) indicators in electronic health records (EHRs) of consenting, non-consenting, and non-responding patients, using the UCC-CVRM as an example.

methodsAll patients visiting the University Medical Center Utrecht for first time evaluation of a(n) (a)symptomatic vascular disease or condition were invited to participate. Routine care data was collected in the EHR and an informed consent was asked. Differences in patient characteristics were compared between consent groups. We performed multivariable logistic regression to identify determinants of non-consent. We used multinomial regression for an exploratory analysis for the determinants of non-response. Presence of CVRM indicators were compared between consent groups. A waiver (19/641) was obtained from our ethics committee.

resultsOut of 5730 patients invited, 2378 were consenting, 1907 non-consenting, and 1445 non-responding. Non-consent was related to young and old age, lower education level, lower BMI, physical activity and haemoglobin levels, higher heartrate, cardiovascular disease history and absence of proteinuria. Non-response increased with young and old age, higher education level, physical activity, HbA1c and decreased with lower levels of haemoglobin, BMI, and systolic blood pressure. Presence of CVRM indicators was 5-30% lower in non-consenting patients and even lower in non-responding patients, compared to consenting patients. Non-consent and non-response varied across specialisms.

conclusionsA traditional informed consent procedure in a LHS may lead to participation bias and potentially to suboptimal CVRM, which is detrimental for feedback on findings in a LHS. This underlines the importance of reassessing the informed consent procedure in a LHS.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular DiseasesLearning Health SystemHeart Disease Risk FactorsHumansInformed ConsentRisk FactorsCardiovascular diseasesCVRMInformed consentLearning healthcare systemParticipation bias

Identifiers

PMID37087415
PMCPMC10122202
OpenAlexW4366769788

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.