ArticleOpen research Europe2024
Evolution of informed consent in research: From the Hippocratic Oath to the tailored consent.
Article in Open research Europe, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Pilot Study to Explore Length and Readability Characteristics of Subject Information Sheets/Informed Consent Forms of Clinical Trial Applications in the EU.Clinical and translational science · 2026Article
- Kauro, a graph-based chatbot for high-fidelity information transmission conversations.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Standardising management of consent withdrawal and other clinical trial participation changes: The UKCRC Registered Clinical Trials Unit Network's PeRSEVERE project.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2025Article
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: Informed consent (IC) is essential in defending the autonomy of potential participants in clinical research. Despite the advances in research ethics, particularly in IC, the different guidelines and codes have not been fully implemented. Several studies have presented consent deficiencies that have resulted in unethical practices or poor understanding of the IC. Main body: This article reviews the evolution of IC, from its philosophical origins and initial use in the Ottoman Empire (16th century) to its use in clinical research today. It also presents the vision of the European project i-CONSENT (Grant Agreement number: 741856), whose main purpose is to improve the understanding of ICs in research and identifies the key components of a new paradigm to develop patient-centred ICs. Conclusions: In many cases, the IC has served to protect the investigator or sponsor from complaints. Different ethical guidelines have sought to make the IC a more useful tool, with little success. Today's IC is mainly a bureaucratic and legal process that fails to consider the patient's point of view. In this context, the Guidelines for Tailoring the Informed Consent Process in Clinical Studies provide alternatives to the current IC process, focusing on the patient's opinions and making them part of the process, thereby improving clinical research quality.
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.