Trial reportJournal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE2025
Weighing Open Science Against Research Participation Burden in Informed Consent: A Randomized Pilot Study.
Trial report in Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Open Science in Undergraduate Medical Education: An International Framework for Transparency, Responsibility, and Professional Identity Formation.Perspectives on medical education · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Deciding to participate in clinical research requires patients to evaluate various trial characteristics. This survey study measured the influence of trial characteristics (visit volume and open data sharing) on willingness to participate in patients with Parkinson's disease. Patients were randomized to either evaluate two trials (joint condition) or a single trial (separate condition). For patients who evaluated both trials, willingness to participate was greater in the restricted science protocol with fewer visits (7.60 vs. 7.12; mean difference, -0.48; 95% CI, -0.83 to -0.14). Patients who evaluated both trials were less willing to participate in the study involving more visits than patients who only evaluated the study involving more visits (7.12 vs. 8.14; mean difference, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.30 to 1.74). Patients have difficulty evaluating information about open science and visit burden when information is presented separately. Although views toward open science were favorable, preferences for fewer visits dominated decisions.
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.