Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 422

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 56 of the 56 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Impracticability of Informed Consent in the Registry of the Canadian Stroke Network

Open access
Tu, Jack V., Willison, Donald J., Silver, Frank L., Fang, Jiming, Richards, Janice A., Laupacis, Andreas, Kapral, Moira K.·2004·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Government legislators and research ethics boards in some jurisdictions require all patients to give written informed consent before enrollment in clinical registries. However, the effect of such a requirement on the use of clinical registries and the extent to which registry data can be generalized remain uncertain. METHODS: We examined the effectiveness of a comprehensive attempt to obtain informed consent between June 2001 and December 2002 on the overall participation rate and the characteristics of participating patients in the Registry of the Canadian Stroke Network, a prospective registry based at 20 major stroke centers across Canada. RESULTS: The overall participation rate (i.e., the consent rate among all potential participants) was 39.3 percent of 4285 eligible patients during phase 1 of the project (June 2001 through February 2002) and 50.6 percent of 2823 eligible patients during phase 2 (June 2002 through December 2002), despite the presence of neurologic research nurse coordinators at each site. Many patients died or left the hospital before they could be approached for consent. Major selection biases were found; the in-hospital mortality rate was much lower among patients who were enrolled (6.9 percent) than among those who were not enrolled (21.7 percent) (relative risk of in-hospital death, 3.13; 95 percent confidence interval, 2.65 to 3.70; P<0.001). We estimate that approximately 500,000 dollars (Canadian dollars) was spent on consent-related issues during the first two years of the registry. CONCLUSIONS: Obtaining written informed consent for participation in a stroke registry led to important selection biases, such that registry patients were not representative of the typical patient with stroke at each center. These findings highlight the need for legislation on privacy and policies permitting waivers of informed consent for minimal-risk observational research.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmsa031697

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 56 references

Cited by

See all 422

Metadata

Authors
Tu, J. V., Willison, D. J., Silver, F. L., Fang, J., Richards, J. A., Laupacis, A., & Kapral, M. K.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2004-04
Volume
350
Issue
14
Pages
1414-1421
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2009899617
Cited by
422
References
56
FWCI
34.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Impracticability of Informed Consent in the Registry of the Canadian Stroke Network. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmsa031697
The paper
Tu, J. V., Willison, D. J., Silver, F. L., Fang, J., Richards, J. A., Laupacis, A., & Kapral, M. K. (2004). Impracticability of Informed Consent in the Registry of the Canadian Stroke Network. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmsa031697

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.