Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39323597›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Intensive Care Society2024

Guidance to inform research recruitment processes for studies involving critically ill patients.

Kerry Woolfall, Katie Paddock, Megan Watkins, Anna Kearney, Katie Neville, Lucy Frith, Ingeborg Welters, Carrol Gamble, John Trinder, Natalie Pattison and 10 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Intensive Care Society, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. The INTEGRITY guidelines - ethical guidance for research involving deceased donation and transplantation.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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

20 authors.

Kerry WoolfallDepartment of Public Health, Policy and Systems, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5726-5304
Katie PaddockFaculty of Health and Education, School of Childhood, Youth and Education Studies, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK.
Megan WatkinsNational Collaborating Centre for Mental Health, Royal College of Psychiatrists, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3933-182X
Anna KearneyDepartment of Health Data Science, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Katie NevilleDepartment of Health Data Science, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Lucy FrithCentre for Social Ethics and Policy, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8506-0699
Ingeborg WeltersInstitute of Life Course and Medical Science, University of Liverpool and Department of Critical Care, Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.
Carrol GambleDepartment of Health Data Science, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
John TrinderSouth Eastern Health & Social Services Trust, Ulster Hospital, Belfast, UK.
Natalie PattisonUniversity of Hertfordshire and East & North Herts NHS Trust, Stevenage, UK.
Catherine WhiteICU Steps, London, UK.
Stephen BrettImperial College London and Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4545-8413
Steve DilworthICU Steps, PPI Partner, UK.
Mike RossPPI Partner, UK.
Paul MounceyIntensive Care National Audit & Research Centre, London, UK.
Kathy RowanIntensive Care National Audit & Research Centre, London, UK.
Angus DawsonCentre for Biomedical Ethics, National University of Singapore, Singapore.
Clive ColletHealth Research Authority, London, UK.
Tim WalshUniversity of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
Bridget YoungDepartment of Public Health, Policy and Systems, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical research in intensive care units (ICUs) is essential for improving treatments for critically ill patients. However, invitations to participate in clinical research in this situation pose numerous challenges. Studies are frequently initiated within a narrow time window when patients are often unconscious and unable to consent. Consultations or consent discussions must therefore be held with consultees or representatives, usually the patient's relatives. Conversations about research participation in this setting may be difficult, as relatives are often overwhelmed and may feel uneasy about making decisions on behalf of their relatives. In some circumstances, legislation allows doctors to act as consultees or representatives to enrol patients in research. However, there is little good quality evidence on UK stakeholders' perspectives to inform how recruitment is carried out in ICU studies. The Perspectives Study collected evidence on the views of over 1400 stakeholders, including patients, relatives and healthcare practitioners, many of whom had first-hand experience of ICU treatment and research. This evidence was used to inform good practice guidance on recruitment of critically ill patients to research. Established social science methods and empirical ethics were employed to reflect the interests of stakeholders and justify recommendations. This guidance aims to bridge the gap between the legal frameworks and the realities of ICU studies and to ensure that research recruitment processes reflect the views of patients and families. Researchers and an expert Advisory Group brought different perspectives to interpreting the evidence to develop the guidance. In this article we present guidance for future ICU studies.

Indexed as

clinical researchconsentcritical careGuidancerecruitment

Identifiers

PMID39323597
PMCPMC11421262

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.