ArticleJTO clinical and research reports2023
Initial Steps in Creating a Patient-Centric Addendum to Clinical Trial Informed Consent Forms.
Article in JTO clinical and research reports, 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Readability of informed consent forms from ClinicalTrials.gov in ketamine clinical trials for mental health conditions: a cross-sectional analysis.Therapeutic advances in psychopharmacology · 2026Article
- Consent beyond the written form: Implications for ketamine trials in the Philippines.Therapeutic advances in psychopharmacology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The purpose of the informed consent form (ICF) is to outline the risks and benefits of an interventional clinical trial to potential participants. The aim of this study was to explore the feasibility of a short addendum to the ICF, summarizing key points most relevant to potential participants. Methods: A sample of 20 ICFs was reviewed against the requirements of the U.S. federal regulation documents and assessed for readability. Alongside the ICF review, we conducted focus groups and one-on-one interviews with people with lung cancer (n = 9) to learn what information was most important when considering participation in a clinical trial using a hypothetical phase 3 ICF. Results: The 20 ICFs reviewed were from phases 1 to 3, expanded-access, and single-patient trials covering predominantly NSCLC; 60% were global. The mean length of the ICFs was 21 (range: 15-34) pages. The average reading level was tenth grade whereas the average U.S. reading level was eighth grade. Readability varied by section, the "purpose of the study" section had the highest reading level. In the qualitative research component, participants were "overwhelmed" by the hypothetical ICF. Participants were also asked to list information for the addendum; their suggestions broadly map to federal regulations. An addendum with reference to sections in the ICF for additional details was well received. Conclusions: The variations in ICF architecture and readability make it difficult for patients to make an informed decision to participate in a clinical trial. Implications extend beyond lung cancer, highlighting key areas for ICF improvements and providing a roadmap for developing a patient-centric addendum.
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.