Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38687699›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Informed consent and trial prioritization for clinical studies during the COVID-19 pandemic. Stakeholder experiences and viewpoints.

Stefanie Weigold, Susanne Gabriele Schorr, Alice Faust, Lena Woydack, Daniel Strech

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors.

Stefanie WeigoldQUEST Center for Responsible Research, Berlin Institute of Health (BIH) at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Susanne Gabriele SchorrQUEST Center for Responsible Research, Berlin Institute of Health (BIH) at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Alice FaustQUEST Center for Responsible Research, Berlin Institute of Health (BIH) at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Lena WoydackQUEST Center for Responsible Research, Berlin Institute of Health (BIH) at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Daniel StrechQUEST Center for Responsible Research, Berlin Institute of Health (BIH) at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9153-079X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVery little is known about the practice-oriented challenges and potential response strategies for effective and efficient translation of informed consent and study prioritization in times of a pandemic. This stakeholder interview study aimed to identify the full spectrum of challenges and potential response strategies for informed consent and study prioritization in a pandemic setting.

methodsWe performed semi-structured interviews with German stakeholders involved in clinical research during the COVID-19 pandemic. We continued sampling and thematic text analysis of interview transcripts until thematic saturation of challenges and potential response strategies was reached.

resultsWe conducted 21 interviews with investigators, oversight bodies, funders and research support units. For the first topic informed consent we identified three main themes: consent challenges, impact of consent challenges on clinical research, and potential strategies for consent challenges. For the second topic prioritization of clinical studies, we identified two main themes: perceived benefit of prioritization and potential strategies for prioritization. All main themes are further specified with subthemes. A supplementary table provides original quotes from the interviews for all subthemes. DISCUSSION: Potential response strategies for challenges with informed consent and study prioritization partly share common ground. High quality procedures for study prioritization, for example, seem to be a core response strategy in dealing with informed consent challenges. Especially in a research environment with particularly high uncertainty regarding potential treatment effects and further limitations for valid informed consent should the selection of clinical trials be very well justified from a scientific, medical, and ethics viewpoint.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicCOVID-19Informed ConsentPandemicsGermanyHumansInterviews as TopicSARS-CoV-2Stakeholder Participation

Identifiers

PMID38687699
PMCPMC11060594

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.