ライフサイエンスコーパス: consent

1 d to treatment who provided written informed consent).

2 ses at the time of randomization; 2 withdrew consent).

3 for surgical intervention provided informed consent.

4 n, unacceptable toxicities, or withdrawal of consent.

5 ticipating parents provided written informed consent.

6 patients in the CLQ cohort provided informed consent.

7 g were included in the study, after informed consent.

8 FFDM during 2004-2013 and provided informed consent.

9 All patients provided written informed consent.

10 or more years, and able to provide informed consent.

11 le-arm study, and patients provided informed consent.

12 ed, 2 were lost to follow-up, and 1 withdrew consent.

13 is HIPAA-compliant study and waived informed consent.

14 research studies with explicit participants' consent.

15 retrospective cohort study, with a waiver of consent.

16 roval and all patients gave written informed consent.

17 PAA-compliant study, with waiver of informed consent.

18 PAA-compliant study, with waiver of informed consent.

19 cs committee and was performed with informed consent.

20 w board approval was obtained with waiver of consent.

21 acetamol overdose, and gave written informed consent.

22 , and all participants gave written informed consent.

23 oard-approved study was exempt from informed consent.

24 Patients gave written informed consent.

25 proval was obtained, with waiver of informed consent.

26 All patients gave informed consent.

27 unacceptable toxic effects, or withdrawal of consent.

28 l review board approval and written informed consent.

29 is study; all patients gave written informed consent.

30 undiagnosed child, and one household refused consent.

31 w boards, and all participants gave informed consent.

32 waiver of the HIPAA requirement for informed consent.

33 d all participants provided written informed consent.

34 -101.2 years) who had given written informed consent.

35 , with waiver of the need to obtain informed consent.

36 s used to collect data after verbal informed consent.

37 sion, intolerable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent.

38 ients or their parents gave written informed consent.

39 All subjects provided written informed consent.

40 w board approval, and patients gave informed consent.

41 ttee, and participants gave written informed consent.

42 , and all participants gave written informed consent.

43 Mothers of 4112 (99%) neonates consented.

44 Of 122 participants consented, 111 were randomized to receive caloric restri

45 ses, 533 were contactable, of whom 222 (42%) consented; 121 were randomly assigned to intervention an

46 In 78 neonates with consent (2%), a test was not done due to early neonatal

47 Of 1,653 subjects consented, 230 were enrolled.

48 After providing informed consent, 24 adult volunteers underwent imaging with one

49 itutional review board approval and informed consent, 26 subjects (16 men, 10 women; mean age, 42 yea

50 Of 434 children with asthma who consented, 286 (mean age, 7.7 yr; male sex, 65.8%) were

51 Of the 397 patients who provided consent, 341 (85.9%) had centrally confirmed, localized

52 Among those who consented, 40017 (81.7%) filled out some portion of the

53 4662 patients who were enrolled and provided consent, 4631 underwent surgery and had available outcom

54 We must enforce explicit consent about the morbidity of innovative, experimental,

55 d, prospectively conducted (written informed consent acquired), cross-sectional study performed in a

56 swiping a glass slide across the forehead of consenting adults.

57 tudy was performed with a waiver of informed consent after institutional review board approval was ob

58 ot complete treatment because of withdrawing consent after receiving 1 dose of study drug.

59 After informed consent, all patients underwent antiviral therapy (AVT)

60 and 116 [49.8%] female; 80 with no informed consent allegation and 153 who cited lack of informed co

61 Informed consent allegations were significantly associated with l

62 ts, malpractice lawsuits, including informed consent allegations, still present a time, money, and re

63 archers worldwide, as allowed by the subject consent and applicable laws.

64 Failure to obtain informed consent and associated medical malpractice case verdict.

65 one of three hypothetical scenarios: tiered consent and controlled data sharing; broad consent and c

66 d consent and controlled data sharing; broad consent and controlled data sharing; or broad consent an

67 to participate in a biobank using different consent and data sharing models, hypothesizing that will

68 prior studies-with implications for informed consent and design for clinical trials targeting high-ri

69 derstanding of LOS is necessary for informed consent and discharge planning.

70 Materials and Methods Written informed consent and institutional ethics committee approval were

71 rials and Methods After obtaining antemortem consent and institutional review board approval, the aut

72 The concern that the use of broad consent and open data sharing could adversely affect par

73 onsent and controlled data sharing; or broad consent and open data sharing.

74 ned to the UK or Ireland, and used an online consent and questionnaire to determine their exposure to

75 tions, including issues surrounding informed consent and the uncertainty of the results of genomic te

76 Those unable to provide consent and unable to read English were excluded.

77 imation is critical for appropriate informed consent and varies substantially across living kidney do

78 In sum, 971 subjects granted informed consent and were enrolled resulting in 904 nonduplicativ

79 communities may increase acceptance of broad consent and wide data sharing in biobank research.

80 tional review board approval, with waiver of consent and with HIPAA compliance, the authors retrospec

81 , 2015, to February 6, 2017, 906 individuals consented and attended Visit 1.

82 invited Health eHeart Study participants who consented and engaged with the study via the internet on

83 cident invasive breast cancer were typically consented and enrolled within 2 months of diagnosis.

84 Fifty-three UK controls consented and provided samples using the same method.

85 r recruitment meetings, 120 eligible schools consented and were randomly assigned to either the inter

86 Fine-scale usage maps can be used in consenting and licensing of anthropogenic developments t

87 Fifty-two participants withdrew consent, and 1,387 participated in the study.

88 Two participants retracted consent, and all others (n = 5108) were included in the

89 dy, a research study, including recruitment, consent, and enrollment, conducted entirely remotely by

90 nfidentiality, professionalism, and informed consent, and increase the potential for undue influence

91 ng appropriate endpoints, ethics of informed consent, and regulatory issues.

92 thods All subjects provided written informed consent, and the protocol was approved by the university

93 accination (of whom 3096 were eligible, 2539 consented, and 2041 were vaccinated 21 days after random

94 accination (of whom 3232 were eligible, 2151 consented, and 2119 were immediately vaccinated) and 455

95 ain caused by cIAI; able to provide informed consent; and diagnosis of cIAI with sonogram or radiogra

96 o investigate the failure to obtain informed consent as an allegation in medical malpractice claims f

97 ndard of care do not need to obtain research consent at all.

98 nical trials should obtain in-depth research consent because they use subjects to obtain data for the

99 One patient (in the FST group) withdrew consent before drug administration and was excluded from

100 ble for analysis because 3 patients withdrew consent before scanning.

101 e participant from each group withdrew after consent, before intervention, leaving an mITT population

102 With informed consent, blood samples were obtained from 50 patients be

103 risk, and 3) patients are fully informed and consent, can adhere to follow-up, and alert providers to

104 Consequently, 1334 (2.7%) of those who consented completed all fields needed to compute heart a

105 itutional review board approval and informed consent, consecutive LT recipients were included.

106 ere patients had previously registered their consent decision, they were denied a healthcare right.

107 constraints on the approaches used in family consent discussions.

108 A total of 152 women withdrew consent during the trial, and 4 were lost to follow up,

109 all, 35% believed it was necessary to obtain consent each time such research was to be performed; thi

110 D38 as a molecular target on CLL cells, both consenting efficient and specific intracellular transfer

111 equisites are as follows: obtaining informed consent; evidencing of an allergen by skin prick tests a

112 despite treatment must have the capacity to consent for a DBS clinical trial in which risks can be e

113 their fetuses raise ethical issues regarding consent for future data mining and intellectual property

114 ffers an ethically appropriate way to obtain consent for many standard-of-care trials in the emergenc

115 Seeking consent for minimal risk research in the ICU poses chall

116 ects are increasingly asked to provide broad consent for open-ended research use and widespread shari

117 ethical goals that are promoted by obtaining consent for standard-of-care research and the barriers t

118 provides a strong reason to obtain research consent for standard-of-care trials in the emergency set

119 All patients provided written informed consent for study participation, the ablation procedure,

120 Two women withdrew consent for use of their data in the analysis.

121 d stage II or III breast cancer and who gave consent for use of their primary tumour samples.

122 l review board approval and written informed consent from all participants were obtained.

123 and gametes, with appropriate oversight and consent from donors, to facilitate research on the possi

124 hics committee approval and written informed consent from each subject, were included in this single-

125 titutional review board and required written consent from the participants.

126 After obtaining informed consent from the readers, 12 CT colonography fly-through

127 ermanent injuries compared with the informed consent group (46 [57.5%] vs 63 [42.0%], P = .03).

128 group, and 47.9 [13.3] years in the informed consent group).

129 Two hundred-sixteen consented hearts were not used; 190 of these were not re

130 to have inadequate documentation of informed consent, immediately withdrew consent, or randomly assig

131 paucity of literature investigating informed consent in spinal surgery malpractice.

132 consent process that promotes the goals for consent in the context of standard-of-care trials.

133 Thirty recruited patients provided informed consent in this institutional review board-approved stud

134 After informed consent, in one visit, subjects underwent cardiac MRI ex

135 ed retrospective study, with waived informed consent, included 244 patients with pathologically prove

136 Finger-prick blood samples from consenting individuals of all ages provided blood films

137 Lack of informed consent is an important cause of medical malpractice lit

138 One patient withdrew consent, leaving 3036 patients included in the trial (me

139 order, and/or minor depression; lived with a consenting legal guardian for at least 6 months; and spo

140 formats that exhibit thermoplastic behavior consenting material reshaping at the nanoscale, microsca

141 Overall, 76 women signed consent (mean [range] age, 56 [37-78] years), 75 started

142 Among 340 patients approached, 303 (89%) consented (median age, 62 years [interquartile range, 53

143 We analyzed linked post-NaF PET data of consenting National Oncologic PET Registry participants

144 d 21,167 scans obtained from 2011 to 2014 of consenting NOPR participants aged 65 y or older.

145 A review of consented, not recovered donor offers suggested an addit

146 Targeted consent offers an ethically appropriate way to obtain co

147 Ten participants withdrew consent or discontinued prematurely, 6 owing to adverse

148 ression, intolerable toxicity, withdrawal of consent, or investigator decision.

149 t continued until progression, withdrawal of consent, or medical necessity.

150 on of informed consent, immediately withdrew consent, or randomly assigned to intervention groups in

151 e progression, intolerability, withdrawal of consent, or study termination.

152 sity and engagement will maximize yield from consented participants.

153 Consenting patients (n = 15) scheduled for curative rese

154 An in-person study included consecutive consenting patients scheduled for electrophysiology and

155 All consenting patients were included, with no exclusion cri

156 Twenty consecutively consenting patients with recent symptomatic carotid even

157 Consenting patients with skin ulcers >1 cm in diameter w

158 omized, open-label, blinded end point trial, consenting patients with type 2 diabetes aged >18 years,

159 d Methods All patients gave written informed consent prior to inclusion in this institutional review

160 One patient assigned to sequence 2 withdrew consent prior to receiving randomised therapy.

161 all men were enrolled with written informed consent prior to treatment.

162 article considers to what extent a targeted consent process can resolve these tensions.

163 CU patients or surrogates support a deferred consent process for a minimal risk study without the pot

164 kidneys raises ethical issues concerning the consent process for each involved party, the prioritizat

165 rriers, it is possible to develop a targeted consent process that promotes the goals for consent in t

166 mmon reason given for endorsing the deferred consent process was the stress of the early ICU experien

167 There has been significant debate over what consent process, if any, should be used for clinical tri

168 tions to properly inform patients during the consent process.

169 te in the parent study; none objected to the consent process.

170 approval was obtained for active or passive consenting processes or to obtain a waiver of consent to

171 s verbal disclosure is preferable to waiving consent, provided a slight delay is consistent with appr

172 ruitment rate was 2.6 patients per month; 2) consent rate was 77.8%; and 3) protocol adherence was 97

173 fective" request and the factors that affect consent rates and family satisfaction with their decisio

174 versations are important because they affect consent rates as well as the psychological impact of the

175 ese differences affect family experience and consent rates deserves investigation.

176 438 cases where next of kin was approached, consent rates reached 47.5%.

177 and manner of the request to increase family consent rates.

178 ct to other regulations that include similar consent requirements, targeted consent's verbal disclosu

179 For trials that qualify for a waiver of the consent requirements, targeted consent's verbal disclosu

180 60 individuals (73%) approached for deferred consent responded positively to the question "Did we mak

181 Consenting respondents completed a two-part survey compo

182 clude similar consent requirements, targeted consent's verbal disclosure and written form provide a w

183 waiver of the consent requirements, targeted consent's verbal disclosure is preferable to waiving con

184 Consenting sites in Kenya were randomly assigned (1:1) b

185 Results Of 2105 consented subjects with 2191 masses, 100 subjects (103 m

186 Of 40 consented subjects, 3 (7.5%) did not qualify.

187 Of 922 consenting survivors, 386 (42%) were employed before ARD

188 s or live in a jurisdiction with a "presumed consent" system, donation often does not go ahead becaus

189 , we provide a brief review of the different consent systems in various European countries, and the r

190 -care research and the barriers to obtaining consent that arise in the emergency setting.

191 certainty, the extent of donor and recipient consent, the scope of the obligation that the organizati

192 If parents consented, there was an additional randomisation (1:1) o

193 ight choice in waiting until now to ask your consent?" three of 60 (5%) responded negatively, and 13

194 lant candidates (KTCs) must provide informed consent to accept kidneys from increased risk donors (IR

195 nts with biopsy-proven PCa provided informed consent to be included in this institutional human ethic

196 ) whether, when, and how to ask families for consent to donation or (b) characteristics of families o

197 onsenting processes or to obtain a waiver of consent to enroll participants, link data, and perform a

198 ated within the intensive care unit (n = 93).Consent to ICOD was obtained in 174 cases.

199 f the follow-on clinical trial gave informed consent to participate in a longitudinal neuroimaging fM

200 fifty-seven individuals were approached for consent to participate in the parent study; none objecte

201 and were able and willing to provide written consent to participate in the study.

202 s (age range, 52-65 years) provided informed consent to participate in this cross-sectional study.

203 evidence of having provided written informed consent to participate.

204 ia, and 634 (9.3%) provided written informed consent to participate.

205 in hospital for more than 24h and who could consent to participating.

206 All participants provided informed consent to take part in the trial.

207 thods All participants gave written informed consent to undergo brain magnetic resonance imaging and

208 lot study, patients undergoing PCNL provided consent to undergo contrast-enhanced US and fluoroscopic

209 tu hybridization of colon tissue-the patient consented to an analytic treatment interruption (ATI) wi

210 inical trial, 268 active-duty servicemembers consented to assessment at an army medical center from M

211 tween January 1, 1970, and November 1, 2014, consented to be included in the Mayo Clinic amyloidosis

212 Of the 116 who consented to be included in the study, 112 (97%, 95% CI

213 , 134 accessed their results online, and 105 consented to be included.

214 entified with a functioning graft at 2 years consented to enroll in an observational, nonintervention

215 more, had no contraindications to iuMRI, and consented to enter the study.

216 who were HIV uninfected and sexually active consented to HIV-1 RNA testing twice a week and biologic

217 y of the interview, the majority of families consented to ICOD.

218 om repair hospital in all eligible women who consented to inclusion and could provide follow-up data.

219 December 6, 2005, and December 9, 2008, 215 consented to ongoing follow-up through at least 7 years

220 Of the 1473 eligible residents, 953 consented to participate in the study (mean age, 86 year

221 ternal biorepository of 123 357 patients who consented to participate in the Total Cancer Care bioban

222 he number of individuals (self-selected) who consented to participate was 48968, representing all 50

223 s (109 693 individuals) in the control group consented to participate.

224 nd fellows from a training program in Mexico consented to participate.

225 Of the 611 patients consented to study enrollment, 380 met the inclusion cri

226 sample of adolescent MSM at risk for HIV who consented to study participation.

227 (86%) competed the survey, including 94 who consented to the parent study and 41 who declined.

228 Of 53 eligible surrogates, 32 (60%) consented to treatment allocation.

229 h a life expectancy greater than 4 weeks who consented to treatment with medication.

230 loan Kettering Cancer Center, 10336 patients consented to tumor DNA sequencing.

231 Of 47 patients approached, 42 consented to undergo detailed neurological evaluations i

232 d with a patient information sheet and those consenting to take part in the study received standardiz

233 HIV status and ART coverage among adults not consenting to the intervention or HIV testing, although

234 lysis, acceptance of HIV testing among those consenting to the intervention was high, although linkag

235 the 45,399 (77%) men and 55,703 (90%) women consenting to the intervention, 80% of men and 85% of wo

236 ish a comprehensive and multiple-stakeholder consented topic list designed for guiding the implementa

237 my group were withdrawn due to withdrawal of consent; two in the active observation group were withdr

238 range, 20-71 years) after obtaining written consent under approval of the institutional review board

239 In total, 40017 (81.7% of those who consented) uploaded data.

240 B disaster preparedness activities, informed consent, vulnerable populations, confidentiality, partic

241 iew board approval was obtained and informed consent waived for this retrospective noninferiority coh

242 al sample collection; otherwise, a waiver of consent was granted, and deferred consent was sought 3 d

243 Consent was higher when the donor coordinator participat

244 review board approval was given and patient consent was not required for this study.

245 e poor prognosis to the patient, an informed consent was obtained after she opted for medical termina

246 An informed consent was obtained after she opted for medical termina

247 Materials and Methods Informed written consent was obtained for all procedures and the study wa

248 Informed consent was obtained for MR imaging.

249 Written informed consent was obtained from 67 consecutive patients (57 ye

250 tutional review board approval, and informed consent was obtained from 72 patients with breast cancer

251 Written informed consent was obtained from all participants before enroll

252 Informed written consent was obtained from all participants prior to entr

253 Informed consent was obtained from all participants.

254 6.5 y) were recruited, and written informed consent was obtained from all participants.

255 the local ethics board and written informed consent was obtained from all participants.

256 Written informed consent was obtained from all participants.

257 Materials and Methods Written informed consent was obtained from all patients, and the study pr

258 Informed consent was obtained from all patients.

259 h Ethics Service Committee; written informed consent was obtained from all patients.

260 onal review board approval; written informed consent was obtained from all patients.

261 Written informed consent was obtained from all patients.

262 itutional review board, and written informed consent was obtained from all study participants.

263 ocal ethics committees, and written informed consent was obtained from all subjects prior to enrollme

264 onal HIPAA-compliant study; written informed consent was obtained from all subjects.

265 Informed consent was obtained from all subjects.

266 Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects.

267 local ethics committee, and written informed consent was obtained from each patient.

268 institutional board review; written informed consent was obtained from healthy subjects and was waive

269 Written informed consent was obtained from patients or their parents.

270 Materials and Methods After written informed consent was obtained, 8869 women (age range, 29-85 years

271 were acquired at 3 T after written informed consent was obtained.

272 s retrospective study and waiver of informed consent was obtained.

273 erviews occurred only after written informed consent was obtained.

274 ved by the ethics review board, and informed consent was obtained.

275 eview of the literature on requesting family consent was prepared to support of the development of le

276 Informed consent was provided according to the last will of the d

277 waiver of consent was granted, and deferred consent was sought 3 days later.

278 on, or if a surrogate was readily available, consent was sought prior to initial sample collection; o

279 ew board approval was obtained, and informed consent was waived in this HIPAA-compliant retrospective

280 Written informed consent was waived.

281 ew board; the requirement to obtain informed consent was waived.

282 oard, and the requirement to obtain informed consent was waived.

283 The requirement to obtain informed consent was waived.

284 the institutional review board, and informed consent was waived.

285 d the requirement to obtain informed written consent was waived.

286 HIPAA-compliant, multicenter study; informed consent was waived.

287 ined, and the requirement to obtain informed consent was waived.

288 ew board approval, and the need for informed consent was waived.

289 ish or siSwati, and provide written informed consent were eligible for the study.

290 ew board exemption and a waiver for informed consent were granted to the author with an academic appo

291 l review board approval and written informed consent were obtained for the Effect of Iso-osmolar Cont

292 l review board approval and written informed consent were obtained from all subjects.

293 After ethical approval and patient informed consent were obtained, two pretreatment T2-weighted axia

294 l review board approval and written informed consent were obtained.

295 board approval and written informed patient consent were obtained.

296 itutional review board approval and informed consent were obtained.

297 eligible individuals, who had given informed consent, were vaccinated and followed up for 21 days und

298 llegation and 153 who cited lack of informed consent) who underwent spinal surgery and filed a malpra

299 reast cancer, intolerable adverse events, or consent withdrawal occurred.

300 se progression, unacceptable adverse events, consent withdrawal, or death.