ArticleZhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences2025
Medical researchers
Article in Zhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
objectivesObtaining informed consent from research participants is an ethical and legal obligation for medical researchers in clinical studies. Electronic informed consent (eIC) is increasingly being adopted in clinical research worldwide. However, there is limited data on Chinese medical researchers' knowledge and attitudes toward eIC. This study aims to investigate their knowledge, attitudes, and influencing factors regarding eIC use in clinical research.
methodsThis cross-sectional study was conducted using stratified random sampling. From June to August 2022, medical researchers from 8 tertiary hospitals were surveyed via an online platform (Wenjuanxing). A self-developed eIC knowledge questionnaire and attitude scale were used to assess participants' understanding and perceptions of eIC. Univariate analysis was employed to explore factors influencing attitude scores and the correlation between knowledge and attitudes. A generalized linear model was used to analyze associations between demographic characteristics and attitude scores, including the frequency of difficulties in using smartphones or computers, preferred device for using eIC, and their interaction effects. Stratified analysis was further performed for significant interactions.
resultsA total of 399 valid questionnaires were collected. The mean accuracy rate on the eIC knowledge questionnaire was (94.88±15.50)%. Of the respondents, 74.9% had heard of eIC, and 84.5% preferred using mobile devices over computers to access eIC. The median attitude score was 3.41 (3.18, 3.76), indicating generally positive attitudes. Specifically, 81.7% found eIC more convenient than paper-based consent, 79.7% considered it more efficient, and 51.1% believed it could fully replace paper forms. However, 60.7% expressed concerns about data security and privacy, and 89.7% believed that relevant laws and regulations need improvement. Spearman correlation analysis showed a weak positive correlation between knowledge and attitude scores (
conclusionsMedical researchers in China generally have a high level of knowledge and positive attitudes toward eIC, though concerns remain regarding data security and privacy. Future promotion of eIC in Chinese clinical research should be grounded in ethical considerations and address the specific needs of older users and mobile device users, while also enhancing researchers' competencies in using digital tools and eIC systems.
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.