Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40677593›Full record

ArticleLearning health systems2025

Landscape of informed consent practices and challenges in point-of-care clinical trials.

Caleigh Propes, Trevan Locke, Rachele Hendricks-Sturrup

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Learning health systems, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Caleigh PropesDepartment of Health Policy and Management Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and the Berman Institute of Bioethics Baltimore Maryland USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-3198-480X
Trevan LockeDuke-Robert J. Margolis, MD, Institute for Health Policy, Duke University Washington DC USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-1173-9844
Rachele Hendricks-SturrupDuke-Robert J. Margolis, MD, Institute for Health Policy, Duke University Washington DC USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3390-2583

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Point-of-care trials, an approach to trial design that assesses medical product effectiveness while fully integrating research and care, represent a promising opportunity to generate practically relevant evidence efficiently for priority disease areas. However, this approach presents unique considerations for appropriate and ethical informed consent. As point-of-care trials evolve, it will be important to examine informed consent through the lens of their supporting technology, of the clinicians who are responsible for administering it, and of their broader regulatory environment. Steps should be taken to establish ethical standards for point-of-care trials that reflect and serve the best interests of patients while reducing administrative burden and complexity. Our commentary describes, overall and through the use of real-world examples, how this work is vital to ensuring a modern clinical trial enterprise that is patient-centered and equips patients to make fully informed decisions about their health care.

Indexed as

informed consentpoint‐of‐care trialspragmatic trialsreal‐world datareal‐world evidence

Identifiers

PMID40677593
PMCPMC12264379

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.