ArticleBMJ open2024
Informed consent and risk communication challenges in antimicrobial clinical trials: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Practical vs Recent Clinical Trial Use Of Dalbavancin.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Microbial Biotechnology in Medicine.Progress in molecular and subcellular biology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesRandomised trials for the management of drug-resistant infections are challenging to conduct as target patient populations often lack decision-making capacity, and enrolment windows are typically short. Improving informed consent and risk communication in these trials is especially crucial for protecting patient interests and maximising trial efficiency. This study aimed to understand challenges in risk communication and informed consent in antimicrobial clinical trials.
designScoping review. DATA SOURCES: Searches were conducted in Embase, Medline, CINAHL and Web of Science Core for peer-reviewed English articles that were published from January 2000 to April 2023. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Included articles were empirical studies or expert opinions that sought experts', patients' or representatives' opinions on informed consent in the context of clinical trials involving antibiotic/anti-infective agents. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Abstract screening, full-text review, data extraction and evidence rating were performed by two independent reviewers. Extracted data were summarised and reported qualitatively based on common themes. A total of 2330 records were retrieved, and 29 articles were included in the review.
resultsHalf of the articles involving medical experts and one-third involving patients and representatives reported that full comprehension by patients and representatives was challenging or not achievable. Healthcare providers and consent takers were crucial for the quality of informed consent. The level of trust consent givers placed on healthcare providers had a critical influence on the consent rate. Emotional distress was pervasive among patients/representatives.
conclusionThe findings indicate that strengthening consent takers' communication skills in providing emotional support to patients and their representatives may improve informed consent. More research is needed to understand informed consent in low-income and middle-income and non-English-speaking countries.
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.