ReviewFrontiers in genetics2025
Verbal consent in biomedical research: moving toward a future standard practice?
Review in Frontiers in genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Blockchain-Based Dynamic and Revocable Consent for Secondary Health Data Use: Systematic Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Pooled it
- Chatbot-Delivered Real-Time Support to Improve HIV Self-Testing Rates: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2025Trial
- Genomic newborn screening: data retention for research and clinical reuse.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Article
- Listening to the Mind: Integrating Vocal Biomarkers into Digital Health.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- The Unseen Challenges: A Qualitative and Multicentre Study Exploring the Experiences of Palliative Care Professionals During COVID-19 Crisis.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
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
Properly obtaining informed consent is a core obligation for research conducted using human subjects. The traditional informed consent process involves written forms and obtaining signatures. This process remains the standard, but in various research settings, such as COVID-19 and rare disease research, verbal consent has increasingly become the norm. Although verbal consent is used in these settings, its use is still a subject of debate. This article reviews in what medical settings verbal consent is commonly seen today, various advantages and disadvantages of verbal consent, and its legislative and policy ecosystem. In doing so, this review article asserts that it is time for the debate over verbal consent to come to an end and for legislator and policymakers to acknowledge its use and to formalize the process. This will allow verbal consent to be regulated in a similar manner to written consent and will give clinician-researchers guidance on how to better implement verbal consent in their studies to addressing ongoing concerns with the consenting process as a whole.
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.