ArticleJCO oncology practice2026
Quality of Informed Consent via Telemedicine Compared With In-Person for Clinical Cancer Research.
Article in JCO oncology practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTelemedicine is increasingly used in oncology research including informed consent discussions, but data evaluating the potential impact of telemedicine on the quality of informed consent are scarce.
methodsConsecutive patients with genitourinary malignancies who underwent informed consent discussions for biomarker (next-generation sequencing) or therapeutic (phase I to III) clinical studies at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center were asked to complete modified versions of the validated Quality of Informed Consent (QuIC) questionnaire evaluating objective (QuIC A) and subjective (QuIC B) understanding. The method used for the informed consent discussion (in-person or telemedicine) was at the physician's discretion. QuIC scores were compared between telemedicine and in-person cohorts using separate linear regression models for QuIC A and B scores and for biomarker and therapeutic protocols. Cochran's Q was calculated to evaluate heterogeneity between biomarker and therapeutic protocols.
resultsOf 320 eligible patients approached between January 2021 and July 2022, 239 patients completed the QuIC questionnaires after informed consent discussion for biomarker (n = 128) or therapeutic (n = 111) protocols, conducted via telemedicine (n = 49) or in person (n = 190). We did not find evidence that telemedicine and in-person consent differed between the biomarker and therapeutic studies for either QuIC A or B (heterogeneity
conclusionOur results support the use of telemedicine for informed consent discussions in clinical cancer research studies of biomarkers and clinical trials.
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.