Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31247285›Full record

SynthesisContemporary clinical trials2019

Informed consent and ethical reporting of research in clinical trials involving participants with psychotic disorders.

Guy M Weissinger, Connie M Ulrich

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Contemporary clinical trials, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Increasing participation of people with thought disorder in clinical research.European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Guy M WeissingerSchool of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, 418 Fagin Hall, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States of America. Electronic address: guyw@nursing.upenn.edu.
Connie M UlrichSchool of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, 418 Fagin Hall, Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States of America; Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania.
University of Pennsylvania · US

Funding

RESEARCH ON VULNERABLE WOMEN CHILDREN AND FAMILIEST32NR007100 · NINR · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI MEDOFF-COOPER, BARBARA S · 1998 to 2018
$7.2M
Retention in Cancer Clinical Trials: Modeling Patients' Risk Benefit AssessmentsR01CA196131 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI ULRICH, CONNIE MARIE · 2015 to 2019
$2.0M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA196131NINR NIH HHS T32 NR007100
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Informed consent is critical for protecting vulnerable individuals interested in research participation, like those with psychotic disorders (e.g. schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, schizophreniform disorder, etc.). Individuals with psychotic disorders may have fluctuating capacity to consent and capacity assessment prior to research participation can help determine decisional status. However, there is little research on how, or if, these assessments are conducted in clinical research. A systematic review of randomized medication or device trials that specifically recruited individuals with psychotic disorders to understand the use and reporting of capacity assessment to consent was conducted. A total of 646 articles were reviewed using a developed questionnaire on ethical reporting of consent practices and capacity assessment. Less than 10% (n = 34; 5.3%) of the studies reported an assessment of capacity to provide informed consent and less than half of those used a standardized assessment. Sixty-four (9.9%) of the articles reported capacity to provide informed consent in the study's inclusion and exclusion criteria. Additionally, 66 (10.2%) of the articles did not provide a statement about institutional review board (IRB) approval; and given the large number of medication and device trials, one out of five articles (n = 134; 20.7%) reported no statement about potential conflicts of interest. Future research should continue to examine these issues and to better understand the benefits and challenges of research participation with psychotic individuals and their decisional capacity in this context.

Indexed as

Research SubjectsDecision MakingHumansInformed ConsentMental CompetencyPsychotic DisordersRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicClinical trialsInformed consentResearch ethicsSchizophrenia

Identifiers

PMID31247285
PMCPMC11520818
OpenAlexW2955886637

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.