ArticleStroke2025
Electronic Informed Consent in the Multi-Arm Optimization of Stroke Thrombolysis Trial.
Article in Stroke, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundObtaining timely informed consent is a key barrier in acute ischemic stroke clinical trial recruitment. Electronic consent (eConsent) allows electronic delivery and documentation of the informed consent process, which may optimize recruitment. eConsent in acute ischemic stroke clinical trials, however, is limited and understudied. We conducted a post hoc analysis of eConsent adoption in MOST (Multi-Arm Optimization of Stroke Thrombolysis Trial), a phase III acute ischemic stroke clinical trial, and studied the impact on recruitment.
methodsFrom October 10, 2019, to July 5, 2023, MOST enrolled 514 participants at 57 sites in the United States. Study databases were reviewed to determine informed consent modality for each participant: paper-in person, paper-remote, eConsent-in person, and eConsent-remote. Study sites could use paper consent or eConsent for each enrollment. eConsent adoption trends and participant demographic diversity were reported using descriptive statistics. We utilized χ
resultseConsent was utilized for 173 (33.7%) of 514 participants. Of 57 sites, 32 (56.1%) utilized eConsent at least once: those sites had higher median enrollment over the course of the entire trial than non-eConsent sites (7.5 [interquartile range, 5-17] versus 3 [interquartile range, 2-4];
conclusionseConsent in MOST was associated with higher individual site enrollment, higher remote consent rates, and improved consent documentation adherence over paper consent. Our study outlines the potential advantages of eConsent adoption in future acute ischemic stroke clinical trials and stroke research networks.
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.