Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39152507›Full record

ArticleTrials2024

Towards an understanding of the ethics of electronic consent in clinical trials.

Katherine Sahan, Rohan Wijesurendra, David Preiss, Marion Mafham, Mark Sheehan

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Katherine SahanEthox Centre, Oxford Population Health, University of Oxford, Big Data Institute, Old Road Campus, Roosevelt Drive, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK.
Rohan WijesurendraClinical Trial Service Unit, Oxford Population Health, University of Oxford, Richard Doll Building, Old Road Campus, Roosevelt Drive, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK.
David PreissClinical Trial Service Unit, Oxford Population Health, University of Oxford, Richard Doll Building, Old Road Campus, Roosevelt Drive, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK.
Marion MafhamClinical Trial Service Unit, Oxford Population Health, University of Oxford, Richard Doll Building, Old Road Campus, Roosevelt Drive, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK.
Mark SheehanEthox Centre, Oxford Population Health, University of Oxford, Big Data Institute, Old Road Campus, Roosevelt Drive, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK. mark.sheehan@ethox.ox.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7191-901X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There are good practical reasons to use electronic consent (e-consent) in randomised trials, especially when conducting large-scale clinical trials to answer population-level health research questions. However, determining ethical reasons for e-consent is not so clear and depends on a proper understanding of what e-consent means when used in clinical trials and its ethical significance. Here we focus on four features of ethical significance which give rise to a range of ethical considerations relating to e-consent and merit further focused ethics research.

Indexed as

Informed ConsentRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicClinical Trials as TopicComprehensionHumansResearch DesignResearch Subjects

Identifiers

PMID39152507
PMCPMC11329992

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.