Ethics and informed consent in clinical trial integrity: An international, multi‐stakeholder consensus statement by Cairo Consensus Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent studies have revealed issues with ethical practice and informed consent in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). We aimed to develop an international, multi-stakeholder consensus statement on human research ethics committee approval and informed participant consent for RCTs. The consensus process encompassed a systematic scoping review, modified two-round Delphi survey, and final consensus meeting of a multi-stakeholder group, including trialists, ethics committee members, methodologists, patient representatives, journal editors, and other experts on RCTs. Delphi consensus deployed the Average Percentage of Majority Opinions (APMO) threshold. There were 36 stakeholders from 12 countries in five continents. Delphi survey response rates were 67% (24/36 stakeholders) and 69% (25/36 stakeholders) in the first and second rounds, respectively. There were 135 statements (18 stakeholder-provided, 117 scoping review-generated) in the initial long list. Three additional statements were provided during the Delphi rounds. APMO threshold was 81.33% and 75.05% for the first and second Delphi rounds, respectively. Through consensus, the final set consolidated 77 statements in the following domains: general aspects (n = 11), journals' instructions and policies (n = 9), research institutions and funders' policies (n = 6), ethics committee regulations (n = 11), ethics committee evaluation and approval (n = 18), monitoring of informed consent procedures (n = 8), monitoring of trials for compliance (n = 3), post-publication concerns on ethics (n = 2), and recommendations for future research and development (n = 9). In conclusion, this international consensus statement provides a comprehensive integrity framework to address the unique challenges in RCT ethics and informed consent. It highlights the importance of robust ethics committee assessments, stakeholder training, patient engagement, and trial monitoring procedures.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.517 | 0.399 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".