ArticleNeurocritical care2026
Common Consent Elements for Research Involving Persons with Disorders of Consciousness (CCE-DOC).
Article in Neurocritical care, 2026. 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.
- Ethical Considerations in Transcranial Focused Ultrasound Neuromodulation for Disorders of Consciousness.Neuromodulation : journal of the International Neuromodulation Society · 2026Article
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
Abstract
Persons with disorders of consciousness (DoC) occupy an ethically charged space in modern medicine and biomedical research. Their decisional capacity is characteristically absent or limited or unpredictably fluctuates, requiring clinicians and investigators to rely on surrogates. Although there is general guidance for informed consent (IC) for research studies, there is no specific guidance for research involving persons with DoC. There are inconsistencies in IC forms for these studies related to explanation of a DoC, evaluation of capacity, description of risks/benefits, and sharing investigational results. This is problematic for persons with DoC, their surrogates, researchers, and institutional review boards (IRBs)/research ethics boards (REBs). To address these issues, the Curing Coma Campaign (CCC) Ethics Workgroup developed the Common Consent Elements for Research Involving Persons with Disorders of Consciousness (CCE-DoC). This practical framework aims to clarify and standardize consent processes in this complex and ethically sensitive research area. Through this structured, adaptable approach, CCE-DoC may have the potential to enhance participant protections, strengthen trust, help families and decision-makers understand studies, reduce duplicative efforts across research groups, and guide investigators and IRBs/REBs in navigating the complex ethical terrain of consent in DoC research. In so doing, CCE-DoC seeks to extend respect for autonomy and trust and promote responsible research urgently needed to advance paradigms of diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment for individuals with disorders of consciousness. The framework offers example language to encourage standardization, while allowing teams flexibility to customize to local needs.
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.