Evidence mapPaperPMID 40107704Full record

ReviewBMJ open2025

Waiver of informed consent in clinical research: a summary of contemporary guidelines and a resource for researchers.

Amanda Siriwardana, Brendan Smyth, Meg Jardine, RESOLVE Study Global Team

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

Amanda SiriwardanaSydney Medical School, Faculty of Medicine & Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia asir3810@uni.sydney.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2417-8500
Brendan SmythNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, Faculty of Medicine & Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Meg JardineNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, Faculty of Medicine & Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
RESOLVE Study Global Team

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveLow-risk pragmatic clinical research such as learning health system research, quality assurance activities and comparative effectiveness studies are approaches to embedding clinical research within routine practice to generate generalisable evidence. Individual written informed consent may present a barrier to the feasibility and inclusiveness of such low-risk clinical research. Within an overarching moral and ethical framework, the form and requirements of consent vary in both clinical practice and research settings according to the context and level of risk. Within some low-risk research settings, waiver of consent may be appropriate. ANALYSIS: We sought to describe contemporary national and international English-language guidelines pertaining to the use and oversight of waiver of consent in clinical research. We identify 14 guidelines including 1 international, 1 regional and 12 national statements, and summarise the principles in each for circumstances in which a waiver of consent is appropriate.

conclusionWhile complete international harmonisation of policy may be neither realistic nor necessary, there are numerous unifying concordances suggesting a broad consensus on the approach to waiver of consent research.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchGuidelines as TopicInformed ConsentHumansPractice Guidelines as TopicClinical TrialMEDICAL ETHICSResearch DesignSTATISTICS & RESEARCH METHODS

Identifiers

PMID40107704
PMCPMC11927427

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.