ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
Analysis of pediatric assent information in early-phase cancer clinical trials through a children's research advisory group.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Participation of children with obstructive sleep apnea in clinical trials: a systematic review of barriers and interventions.Translational pediatrics · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This study aims to identify potential barriers to children's proper understanding of informed assent forms and to evaluate alignment with existing guidelines. Material and methods: The KIDS Madrid Young People Advisory Group (YPAG) reviewed six pediatric oncology trial assent forms using a structured questionnaire. Investigators provided item-specific weightings. Quantitative and qualitative data were integrated. Results: The analysis showed moderate satisfaction overall. Strengths included clarity in describing the trial purpose and risks/benefits. Key deficiencies were found in accessibility features such as audiovisual aids, and simplified language. Investigators prioritized technical accuracy, while KIDS emphasized clarity, structure, and engagement. Gaps were identified in adherence to existing guidelines, especially regarding document length, readability, and support resources. Discussion: There is a clear mismatch between investigators' focus and young patients' needs. While technical content was generally adequate, critical elements for child comprehension were lacking. These findings support the need to involve YPAGs to improve pediatric assent documents.
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.