ArticlePerspectives in clinical research
Readability of informed consent documents and its impact on consent refusal rate.
Article in Perspectives in clinical research. 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.
- 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
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Informed consent documents (ICDs) are integral to a research project and must provide all required information to the participant. We undertook a 6-year retrospective cross-sectional analysis of ICDs to assess the same. Methods: We accessed 300 ICDs from studies submitted to institutional ethics committee. Studies were selected using random proportional-to-size sampling across years and study types (thesis, pharma, government, investigator initiated [OA] studies). We used the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease Score (FRES), estimated reading time (ERT) and scored ICDs out of 13 points on the basis of the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR)-mandated headings (ICD Quality Score [IQS]). Information pertaining to the consent refusal rate (CRR) of each study was correlated with FRES, ERT, and other parameters. Results: Two hundred and ninety-three ICDs had complete information. Median FRES was 48.3 (interquartile range [IQR] = 7), median ERT was 4.5 min (IQR = 1.3), the median expected duration of participation was 35 min (IQR = 40); compensation was provided by 23 projects and median compensation was Rs. 2500 (IQR = Rs. 4750). Mean IQS improved from 11.95 to 12.60 in 6 years (Kruskal-Wallis test, Conclusion: Pharma studies performed better and ICDs have improved in their readability and ICMR guidelines compliance.
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.