ArticleJournal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open2022
Inclusion of older adults and reporting of consent processes in randomized controlled trials in the emergency department: A scoping review.
Article in Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Digital Informed Consent for Older Adults in Emergency Department Research.Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics Conference · 2023Article
- Inclusion of older adults and reporting of consent processes in randomized controlled trials in the emergency department: A scoping review.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: Conducting research in the emergency department (ED) is often complicated by patients' acute and chronic illnesses, which can adversely affect cognition and subsequently capacity to consent for research, especially in older adults. Validated screening tools to assess capacity to consent for research exist, but neither the frequency of use nor which ones are used for ED research are known. Methods: We conducted a scoping review using standard review techniques. Inclusion criteria included (1) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from publication years 2014-2019 that (2) enrolled participants only in the ED, (3) included patients aged 65+ years, and (4) were fully published in English. Articles were sourced from Embase and screened using Covidence. Results: From 3130 search results, 269 studies passed title/abstract and full text screening. Average of the mean or median ages was 55.7 years (SD 14.2). The mean number of study participants was 311.9 [range 8-10,807 participants]. A few (n = 13, 4.8%) waived or had exception from informed consent. Of the 256 studies requiring consent, a fourth (26.5%, n = 68) specifically excluded patients due to impaired capacity to consent. Only 11 (4.3%) documented a formal capacity screening tool and only 13 (5.1%) reported consent by legally authorized representative (LAR). Conclusions: Most RCTs enrolling older adults in EDs did not report assessment of capacity to consent or use of LARs. This snapshot of informed consent procedures is potentially concerning and suggests that either research consent processes for older patients and/or reporting of consent processes require improvement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.