Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35966997›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in human neuroscience2022

Asking questions that matter - Question prompt lists as tools for improving the consent process for neurotechnology clinical trials.

Andreas Schönau, Sara Goering, Erika Versalovic, Natalia Montes, Tim Brown, Ishan Dasgupta, Eran Klein

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in human neuroscience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

7 authors.

Andreas SchönauDepartment of Philosophy, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.
Sara GoeringDepartment of Philosophy, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.
Erika VersalovicDepartment of Philosophy, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.
Natalia MontesDepartment of Philosophy, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.
Tim BrownDepartment of Philosophy, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.
Ishan DasguptaDana Foundation, New York, NY, United States.
Eran KleinDepartment of Neurology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, United States.

Funding

Post-trial obligations in neurotechnologyRF1MH117800 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI GOERING, SARA, KLEIN, ERAN · 2018 to 2020
$2.2M
NIMH NIH HHS RF1 MH117800
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Implantable neurotechnology devices such as Brain Computer Interfaces (BCIs) and Deep Brain Stimulators (DBS) are an increasing part of treating or exploring potential treatments for neurological and psychiatric disorders. While only a few devices are approved, many promising prospects for future devices are under investigation. The decision to participate in a clinical trial can be challenging, given a variety of risks to be taken into consideration. During the consent process, prospective participants might lack the language to consider those risks, feel unprepared, or simply not know what questions to ask. One tool to help empower participants to play a more active role during the consent process is a Question Prompt List (QPL). QPLs are communication tools that can prompt participants and patients to articulate potential concerns. They offer a structured list of disease, treatment, or research intervention-specific questions that research participants can use as support for question asking. While QPLs have been studied as tools for improving the consent process during cancer treatment, in this paper, we suggest they would be helpful in neurotechnology research, and offer an example of a QPL as a template for an informed consent tool in neurotechnology device trials.

Indexed as

BCI (brain computer interface)DBS (deep brain stimulation)neurotechnologyparticipant perspectiveQPL (question prompt list)

Identifiers

PMID35966997
PMCPMC9372354

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.