ArticleThe oncologist2025
An asynchronous electronic consent for improving consent in research among patients with cancer.
Article in The oncologist, 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInformed consent is essential to ensuring ethical conduct of clinical research in oncology, but can be challenging and time-consuming to implement. Electronic consenting (e-consent) may address these issues, but acceptability of e-consent among patients with cancer must be assessed.
methodsAn asynchronous preliminary e-consent was developed for a prospective circulating tumor DNA testing study for patients with colorectal/pancreatic cancer. Following e-consent, patient satisfaction was assessed in a follow-up call before full consent was obtained. Acceptability was assessed with descriptive statistics and bivariate analysis.
resultsFifty-one participants completed the preliminary e-consent, 90% of which preferred electronic full consent over traditional consent. Comfort enrolling after e-consent was rated highly by 93% of participants. Additionally, 80% of participants indicated that a follow-up call had no impact on decision to enroll.
conclusionThese findings suggest that asynchronous e-consenting is highly acceptable among oncology patients but future work should assess comprehension with this approach.
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.