Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38639817›Full record

ArticleBundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz2024

[Nationally standardized broad consent in practice: initial experiences, current developments, and critical assessment].

Sven Zenker, Daniel Strech, Roland Jahns, Gabriele Müller, Fabian Prasser, Christoph Schickhardt, Georg Schmidt, Sebastian C Semler, Eva Winkler, Johannes Drepper

Abstract readEnglish Abstract
In one paragraph

Article in Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. The Implementation of Broad Consent at University Hospitals.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2025
    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

10 authors.

Sven ZenkerStabsstelle Medizinisch-Wissenschaftliche Technologieentwicklung und -koordination (MWTek), Kaufmännische Direktion, Universitätsklinikum Bonn, Bonn, Deutschland. zenker@uni-bonn.de.
Daniel StrechQUEST Center for Responsible Research, Berlin Institute of Health at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Deutschland.
Roland JahnsInterdisziplinäre Biomaterial- und Datenbank Würzburg (ibdw), Universitätsklinikum Würzburg, Würzburg, Deutschland.
Gabriele MüllerZentrum für Evidenzbasierte Gesundheitsversorgung, Universitätsklinikum und Medizinische Fakultät Carl Gustav Carus an der Technischen Universität Dresden, Dresden, Deutschland.
Fabian PrasserCenter for Health Data Science, Berlin Institute of Health at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Deutschland.
Christoph SchickhardtSektion Translationale Medizinethik, KKE Angewandte Tumor-Immunität, Nationales Centrum für Tumorerkrankungen (NCT), Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum (DKFZ) Heidelberg und Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Deutschland.
Georg SchmidtKlinik und Poliklinik für Innere Medizin I. Klinikum rechts der Isar der Technischen Universität München, München, Deutschland.
Sebastian C SemlerTMF - Technologie- und Methodenplattform für die vernetzte medizinische Forschung e. V., Berlin, Deutschland.
Eva WinklerSektion Translationale Medizinethik, Abteilung Medizinische Onkologie, Nationales Centrum für Tumorerkrankungen (NCT), Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg und Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Deutschland.
Johannes DrepperTMF - Technologie- und Methodenplattform für die vernetzte medizinische Forschung e. V., Berlin, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe digitalization in the healthcare sector promises a secondary use of patient data in the sense of a learning healthcare system. For this, the Medical Informatics Initiative's (MII) Consent Working Group has created an ethical and legal basis with standardized consent documents. This paper describes the systematically monitored introduction of these documents at the MII sites.

methodsThe monitoring of the introduction included regular online surveys, an in-depth analysis of the introduction processes at selected sites, and an assessment of the documents in use. In addition, inquiries and feedback from a large number of stakeholders were evaluated.

resultsThe online surveys showed that 27 of the 32 sites have gradually introduced the consent documents productively, with a current total of 173,289 consents. The analysis of the implementation procedures revealed heterogeneous organizational conditions at the sites. The requirements of various stakeholders were met by developing and providing supplementary versions of the consent documents and additional information materials. DISCUSSION: The introduction of the MII consent documents at the university hospitals creates a uniform legal basis for the secondary use of patient data. However, the comprehensive implementation within the sites remains challenging. Therefore, minimum requirements for patient information and supplementary recommendations for best practice must be developed. The further development of the national legal framework for research will not render the participation and transparency mechanisms developed here obsolete.

Indexed as

Informed ConsentConsent FormsElectronic Health RecordsGermanyHumansNational Health ProgramsBroad description of purposeGeneral Data Protection RegulationImplementation supportInformed consentSecondary use of health data

Identifiers

PMID38639817
PMCPMC11166792

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.