ArticleNeurotrauma reports
Recollection of Informed Consent and Study Participation in Acute Spinal Cord Injury Clinical Studies: A 12-Year Retrospective Survey with Implications for Ethical Research Practices.
Article in Neurotrauma reports. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Scientific advancements in spinal cord injury (SCI) have focused on early interventions. However, research in the acute SCI setting presents ethical challenges, particularly the durability of informed consent. Given trauma's effects on cognition, we assessed participants' recollection of the consent process and willingness to participate in future research. A 15-item questionnaire was administered to 119 participants previously enrolled in one of three acute SCI studies at our institution between 2010 and 2022. Of 32 responses, 47% recalled the consent process, 30% were unsure, and 23% had no recollection. Recall of specific details was also inconsistent. Of 11 participants who recalled receiving a study treatment, only 4 (36%) were in an interventional arm. While injury severity and level did not affect recollection, time since injury and age at the time of the survey were associated with recall differences. Notably, all 18 subjects who recalled their enrollment also recalled follow-up visits from study personnel, suggesting ongoing contact may reinforce awareness of their involvement. In the acute SCI setting, physical and psychological distress challenge the informed consent process. Our survey revealed significant inaccuracies in participant recall, undermining the intent of informed consent. We propose that practices like continuous consent, coupled with regular study-related interactions, may improve participants' understanding and retention of information, thereby strengthening the ethical foundation of acute SCI research.
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.