Literature DB >> 26677982

Reporting of consent rates in critical care studies: room for improvement.

Avanti Garde1, Katie O'Hearn2, Stuart Nicholls2, Kusum Menon3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Reporting of consent rates in published articles is important to determine potential sources of bias and validity and generalizability of results. Our objective was to determine the percentage of critical care studies for which the consent rate was reported. STUDY DESIGN AND
SETTING: We reviewed all articles published in eight medical journals in 2013. Studies meeting the following inclusion criteria were selected: (1) randomized controlled trial (RCT) or observational clinical study, (2) study population involving critically ill patients, and (3) part of the study occurring in an intensive care unit.
RESULTS: A total of 1,871 articles were screened of which 156 were included. The consent rate was discernable in 30.8% of articles (48/156, 95% confidence interval: 24.1, 38.4) with a median consent rate of 86.9% (interquartile range, 71.6, 94.1). A statement on Research Ethics Board approval was included in 96.8% of studies. There was a significant difference in reporting of consent rates between RCTs and non-RCTs (58.70% vs. 19.09%, P < 0.0001).
CONCLUSION: Consent rates are reported in less than one-third of critical care studies. We encourage journals to require reporting of consent rates to improve interpretation, validity, and generalizability of critical care study results.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bias; Consent; Consent rate; Critical care; Intensive care unit; Medical ethics

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26677982     DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.11.015

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  3 in total

1.  Including migrant oncology patients in research: A multisite pilot randomised controlled trial testing consultation audio-recordings and question prompt lists.

Authors:  Amelia Hyatt; Ruby Lipson-Smith; Karla Gough; Phyllis Butow; Michael Jefford; Thomas F Hack; Sandra Hale; Emiliano Zucchi; Shane White; Uldis Ozolins; Penelope Schofield
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials Commun       Date:  2022-05-28

2.  Cohort profile of Acutelines: a large data/biobank of acute and emergency medicine.

Authors:  Ewoud Ter Avest; Barbara C van Munster; Raymond J van Wijk; Sanne Tent; Sanne Ter Horst; Ting Ting Hu; Lisanne E van Heijst; Felien S van der Veer; Fleur E van Beuningen; Jan Cornelis Ter Maaten; Hjalmar R Bouma
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-07-15       Impact factor: 2.692

3.  Comparison of randomized controlled trials discontinued or revised for poor recruitment and completed trials with the same research question: a matched qualitative study.

Authors:  Matthias Briel; Benjamin Speich; Erik von Elm; Viktoria Gloy
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2019-12-30       Impact factor: 2.279

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.