Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 249

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Informed consent: study of quality of information given to participants in a clinical trial.

Open access
Lynoe, N, Sandlund, M, Dahlqvist, G, Jacobsson, L·1991·BMJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the participants in a clinical trial had perceived adequate information about the trial according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki. DESIGN: About 18 months after the end of a gynaecological clinical trial the participants received a questionnaire by post, which focused on the quality of the information given to them before entering the trial. Neither researchers nor participants were aware in advance that the trial would become the subject of this follow up investigation. SETTING: Eight different centres in Sweden. SUBJECTS: 43 women out of the 53 who completed the trial (mean (range) age 23 (16 to 35) years) returned the questionnaire. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Adequacy of the information (based on requirements of the Declaration of Helsinki) to enable the following: understanding of the aims of the study; awareness of what participation meant; and awareness of the possibility of withdrawing from participation at any time. Motives for agreeing to participate, and a subjective evaluation of the given information were also recorded. RESULTS: All but one of the participants had been aware that they were taking part in a research project. Five women stated that they had not been aware that a second laparoscopy was performed only for research reasons. Seven women reported that they had not been aware of the meaning of participating in the project and 17 that they had had no information about the possibility of withdrawing from the study whenever they wanted. In the subjective rating 22 women considered the information given as good or very good. There was a systematic variation in the quality of the given information among the eight centres. CONCLUSION: Although all but one of the participants had been aware that they were taking part in a clinical trial, the quality of the information understood and recalled by participants varied, and in many cases clearly did not meet the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki. Variations among centres in participants' perception of information suggest that deficiencies in perception may be caused by informers rather than the participants.

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 · 10.1136/bmj.303.6803.610

Cites

1 of 1 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

Cited by

See all 249

Metadata

Authors
Lynoe, N., Sandlund, M., Dahlqvist, G., & Jacobsson, L.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1991-09-14
Volume
303
Issue
6803
Pages
610-613
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W1971338600
Cited by
249
References
1
FWCI
7.20
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: Informed consent: study of quality of information given to participants in a clinical trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.303.6803.610
The paper
Lynoe, N., Sandlund, M., Dahlqvist, G., & Jacobsson, L. (1991). Informed consent: study of quality of information given to participants in a clinical trial. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.303.6803.610

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.