The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Participants’ understanding of informed consent in clinical trials over three decades: systematic review and meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the proportion of participants in clinical trials who understand different components of informed consent. METHODS: Relevant studies were identified by a systematic review of PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar and by manually reviewing reference lists for publications up to October 2013. A meta-analysis of study results was performed using a random-effects model to take account of heterogeneity. FINDINGS: The analysis included 103 studies evaluating 135 cohorts of participants. The pooled proportion of participants who understood components of informed consent was 75.8% for freedom to withdraw at any time, 74.7% for the nature of study, 74.7% for the voluntary nature of participation, 74.0% for potential benefits, 69.6% for the study's purpose, 67.0% for potential risks and side-effects, 66.2% for confidentiality, 64.1% for the availability of alternative treatment if withdrawn, 62.9% for knowing that treatments were being compared, 53.3% for placebo and 52.1% for randomization. Most participants, 62.4%, had no therapeutic misconceptions and 54.9% could name at least one risk. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses identified covariates, such as age, educational level, critical illness, the study phase and location, that significantly affected understanding and indicated that the proportion of participants who understood informed consent had not increased over 30 years. CONCLUSION: The proportion of participants in clinical trials who understood different components of informed consent varied from 52.1% to 75.8%. Investigators could do more to help participants achieve a complete understanding.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000) · Biometrics · doi:10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00455.x · Cited by 14,099
Principles of Biomedical Ethics
(2012) · Thieves of Virtue · doi:10.7551/mitpress/9079.003.0009 · Cited by 13,453
Ethical and Scientific Implications of the Globalization of Clinical Research
Glickman, S. W., McHutchison, J. G., Peterson, E. D., Cairns, C. B., Harrington, R. A., Califf, R. M., & Schulman, K. A. (2009) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmsb0803929 · Cited by 710
Quality of informed consent in cancer clinical trials: a cross-sectional survey
Joffe, S., Cook, E. F., Cleary, P. D., Clark, J. W., & Weeks, J. C. (2001) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(01)06805-2 · Cited by 655
Systematic Reviews: Constructing a Search Strategy and Searching for Evidence
Aromataris, E., & Riitano, D. (2014) · AJN, American Journal of Nursing · doi:10.1097/01.naj.0000446779.99522.f6 · Cited by 523
Use of PCR for diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis: systematic review and meta-analysis
Mengoli, C., Cruciani, M., Barnes, R. A., Loeffler, J., & Donnelly, J. P. (2009) · The Lancet Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1016/s1473-3099(09)70019-2 · Cited by 354
Mills, N., Donovan, J. L., Smith, M., Jacoby, A., Neal, D. E., & Hamdy, F. C. (2003) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/s0197-2456(03)00020-5 · Cited by 142
Improving the informed consent process for research subjects with low literacy: a systematic review
Tamariz, L., Palacio, A., Robert, M., & Marcus, E. N. (2013) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-012-2133-2 · Cited by 140
Cited by
Sissoko, D., Laouenan, C., Folkesson, E., M’Lebing, A.-B., Beavogui, A.-H., Baize, S., Camara, A.-M., Maes, P., Shepherd, S., Danel, C., et al. (2016) · PLOS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001967 · Cited by 478
Patient involvement in clinical research: why, when, and how
Sacristan, J. A., Aguaron, A., Avendaño, C., Garrido, P., Carrion, J., Gutierrez, A., Kroes, R., & Flores, A. (2016) · Patient Preference and Adherence · doi:10.2147/ppa.s104259 · Cited by 363
The reality of informed consent: empirical studies on patient comprehension—systematic review
Pietrzykowski, T., & Smilowska, K. (2021) · Trials · doi:10.1186/s13063-020-04969-w · Cited by 259
Enhancing community engagement by schools and programs of public health in the United States
Levin, M. B., Bowie, J. V., Ragsdale, S. K., Gawad, A. L., Cooper, L. A., & Sharfstein, J. M. (2021) · Annual Review of Public Health · doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-090419-102324 · Cited by 40
Zai, A. H., Faro, J. M., & Allison, J. (2024) · Journal of Clinical and Translational Science · doi:10.1017/cts.2024.595 · Cited by 12
Metadata
- Authors
- Tam, N. T., Huy, N. T., Thoa, L. T. B., Long, N. P., Trang, N. T. H., Hirayama, K., & Karbwang, J.
- Venue
- Bulletin of the World Health Organization
- Publisher
- WHO Press
- Published
- 2015-01-22
- Volume
- 93
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 186-198H
- ISSN
- 0042-9686 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2029187567
- Cited by
- 315
- References
- 9
- FWCI
- 3.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
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: Participants’ understanding of informed consent in clinical trials over three decades: systematic review and meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2471/blt.14.141390
- The paper
- Tam, N. T., Huy, N. T., Thoa, L. T. B., Long, N. P., Trang, N. T. H., Hirayama, K., & Karbwang, J. (2015). Participants’ understanding of informed consent in clinical trials over three decades: systematic review and meta-analysis. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. https://doi.org/10.2471/blt.14.141390
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.