SynthesisCritical care (London, England)2025
Research without prior consent procedure and intervention effect on mortality in critical care: a meta-epidemiological study of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Critical care (London, England), 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn critical care randomized controlled trials (RCTs), obtaining informed consent from patients or proxies can be challenging and may delay randomization, potentially affecting intervention efficacy. Research without prior consent (RWPC) procedures are increasingly used to facilitate timely inclusion but their impact on trial outcomes remains uncertain. We aimed to assess whether RWPC procedures are associated with differences in intervention effects on mortality in critical care RCTs.
methodsWe searched PubMed and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception to August 1, 2024. We included meta-analyses of RCTs evaluating therapeutic interventions in critically ill adults, reporting mortality as a primary or secondary outcome. We conducted a meta-epidemiological study using a two-step approach. First, we calculated the ratio of odds ratios (ROR) within each meta-analysis to compare the effect of interventions on mortality between RCTs using RWPC and those using standard consent. Second, we pooled these RORs across meta-analyses using a random-effects model. Secondary outcomes included the delay from eligibility to randomization and the recruitment rate.
resultsWe included 42 meta-analyses comprising 323 RCTs and 103,011 patients, of which 59 RCTs (18%) used a RWPC procedure. Trials using RWPC were more recent (median year: 2015 [2008-2019] vs. 2012 [2007-2017]; p < 0.01), larger (sample size: 203 [101-605] vs. 72 [40-162]; p < 0.01), more frequently multicenter (80% vs. 43%; p < 0.01), and had lower overall risk of bias. There was no significant difference in intervention effect on mortality between trials with and without RWPC (pooled ROR, 1.05 [95% CI 0.83-1.34]; I²=71.7%). RWPC was associated with shorter time to randomization (3 [1-9] vs. 11 [4-23] hours; p < 0.01) and higher recruitment rates (9.6 [4.7-18.7] vs. 4.5 [1.9-8.6] patients/month; p = 0.01).
conclusionsIn critical care RCTs, RWPC procedures were not associated with differences in intervention effect on mortality but were linked to shorter time to randomization and higher recruitment rates.
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.