Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40953890›Full record

ArticleCMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne2025

Core elements of consent documentation for clinical research in Canada: guidance for policy.

Holly Longstaff, Brenda Lucas, Brittney Schichter, Srinivas Murthy, Jaime Flamenbaum, Canadian Critical Care Trials Group

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

6 authors.

Holly LongstaffBC Provincial Health Services Authority (Longstaff, Schichter); University of British Columbia Children's and Women's Health Centre of British Columbia Research Ethics Board (Longstaff), Vancouver, BC; Canadian Critical Care Trials Group (Lucas), Markham, Ont.; Faculty of Medicine (Murthy), University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC; Science Policy Branch (Flamenbaum), Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Ottawa, Ont. holly.longstaff@phsa.ca.
Brenda LucasBC Provincial Health Services Authority (Longstaff, Schichter); University of British Columbia Children's and Women's Health Centre of British Columbia Research Ethics Board (Longstaff), Vancouver, BC; Canadian Critical Care Trials Group (Lucas), Markham, Ont.; Faculty of Medicine (Murthy), University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC; Science Policy Branch (Flamenbaum), Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Ottawa, Ont.
Brittney SchichterBC Provincial Health Services Authority (Longstaff, Schichter); University of British Columbia Children's and Women's Health Centre of British Columbia Research Ethics Board (Longstaff), Vancouver, BC; Canadian Critical Care Trials Group (Lucas), Markham, Ont.; Faculty of Medicine (Murthy), University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC; Science Policy Branch (Flamenbaum), Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Ottawa, Ont.
Srinivas MurthyBC Provincial Health Services Authority (Longstaff, Schichter); University of British Columbia Children's and Women's Health Centre of British Columbia Research Ethics Board (Longstaff), Vancouver, BC; Canadian Critical Care Trials Group (Lucas), Markham, Ont.; Faculty of Medicine (Murthy), University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC; Science Policy Branch (Flamenbaum), Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Ottawa, Ont.
Jaime FlamenbaumBC Provincial Health Services Authority (Longstaff, Schichter); University of British Columbia Children's and Women's Health Centre of British Columbia Research Ethics Board (Longstaff), Vancouver, BC; Canadian Critical Care Trials Group (Lucas), Markham, Ont.; Faculty of Medicine (Murthy), University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC; Science Policy Branch (Flamenbaum), Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Ottawa, Ont.
Canadian Critical Care Trials Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConsent forms have become too long and often do little to help people understand the risk elements of their participation in research, instead focusing on risk reduction for research institutions. Under the auspices of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group, we identified a core set of elements for participant consent documents to be used in clinical research and present these as a template consent form.

methodsOur guideline core team comprised experts in the legal and ethical aspects of research, and a clinical trialist-scientist. We conducted a directed review to compile a list of applicable regulatory, policy, and guidance requirements for the documentation of informed consent for research conducted with human participants in Canada. We used a gap analysis to identify the elements required in a research consent form, based on these documents and in comparison with 10 existing research ethics board (REB) informed-consent form templates. The guideline, as well as a fillable template for the form, was created with input from a pan-Canadian advisory group, interested parties, and broad public input. We tested the template with a small group of studies across several research domains. Our process for managing competing interests adhered to Guidelines International Network principles. RECOMMENDATIONS: From our gap analysis, we identified 75 core elements for participant consent forms in clinical research, which we have grouped under 6 main categories (i.e., information for potential participants about participating in research in general and in the particular study; harms and benefits of participation; protection of participant data; points of contact; and giving consent) in a fillable consent template. Because studies vary, specific elements should be included in a study consent form only if relevant to the type of research being conducted and the corresponding compliance requirements, as identified in our gap analysis.

interpretationThe template with the core set of required elements is intended to be used by any researcher applying for REB approval to document participant consent and, when applied with consideration of our associated guidance, is sufficient to meet regulatory requirements for research in Canada. Identifying the required elements for consent forms is intended to streamline consent documents across the country, facilitate multi-site projects, and simplify the approval process for all those involved.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchConsent FormsDocumentationInformed ConsentCanadaEthics Committees, ResearchGuidelines as TopicHumans

Identifiers

PMID40953890
PMCPMC12448764

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.