ArticlePerspectives in clinical research
A cross-sectional audit of informed consent of online survey: Characteristics and adherence to prevalent guidelines.
Article in Perspectives in clinical research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Research on human participants requires formal approval from a competent ethics committee. During the recruitment of the research participants, obtaining informed consent is a prerequisite. The online survey method is used by many researchers as it can collect the data from a diverse population in a short time. Aim: This study aimed to observe the characteristics and adherence to prevalent guidelines (set by the Methods: We collected the informed consent text from online survey links obtained from a network of colleagues who got a request to participate in a survey. Data were collected from July 2020 to June 2022. The text was anonymized for further analysis. The word count, sentences, and Flesch reading ease score were calculated. The adherence to ICMR guidelines where checked by two authors individually and a consensus was reached to prepare the final result. Results: A total of 44 online surveys in English were audited and among them, 10 did not have informed consent. The informed consent in 34 surveys had a median of 6 sentences and 84 words. The median reading ease score was 45.7 (college level). The majority of the consent states the purpose of the research (91.18%), the voluntary nature of the participation (85.29%), and mentioned that it is research (64.71%). However, the rest of the components are ignored by the majority of the survey consent form. Conclusion: Informed consent form with online surveys lacks adherence to the components suggested by ICMR. Hence, the forms should be made carefully by the researchers so that the vigor of informed consent is maintained in the online surveys.
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.