ArticlePLOS digital health2026
Design, implementation and analysis of a quality assurance process for Informed Consents using the DZHK registry TORCH-DZHK1 as an example.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To collect sensitive patient data during clinical trials, the Informed Consent (IC) of the participants must be obtained beforehand. If the IC is not correct and complete, the document cannot be used to represent the will of the participant and will not be considered a legally valid document. However, few studies have examined the quality of the IC and the IC-quality found is unfortunately not satisfactory. The aim of this article is to describe the development of an IC quality assurance concept and to report the results of an evaluation using the example of a German Centre for Cardiovascular Research (DZHK) registry. All quality issues identified during the study were documented. These were aggregated into the quality indicators "Completeness", "Consistency of Data", "Correctness" and "Validity". Of 2,453 ICs, 1,588 had at least one quality issue; 99.8% of them were resolved. In addition, training sessions were conducted with study staff to raise awareness of the importance of correct IC collection, including documentation, and to minimize quality issues. Our data exemplify that improvements in the recording of ICs by the study staff can be achieved. This evaluation shows the value and importance of continuous IC quality control.
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.