↓ Skip to main content

Normative framework of informed consent in clinical research in Germany, Poland, and Russia

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, May 2021
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
7 X users

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Normative framework of informed consent in clinical research in Germany, Poland, and Russia
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, May 2021
DOI 10.1186/s12910-021-00622-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marcin Orzechowski, Katarzyna Woniak, Cristian Timmermann, Florian Steger

Abstract

Biomedical research nowadays is increasingly carried out in multinational and multicenter settings. Due to disparate national regulations on various ethical aspects, such as informed consent, there is the risk of ethical compromises when involving human subjects in research. Although the Declaration of Helsinki is the point of reference for ethical conduct of research on humans, national normative requirements may diverge from its provisions. The aim of this research is to examine requirements on informed consent in biomedical research in Germany, Poland, and Russia to determine how each national regulatory framework relates to the provisions of the Declaration of Helsinki. For this analysis, we conducted a search of the legal databases "Gesetze im Internet" for Germany, "Internetowy System Aktow Prawnych" for Poland, and "ГAPAHT - Garant" for Russia. The search was complemented by a review of secondary literature contained in the databases Google Scholar, PubMed, Polish National Library, and eLibrary.ru. We have identified 21 normative regulations containing provisions on informed consent in clinical research in all three countries. The content of these documents was systematically categorized and analyzed. The normative framework in all three countries shows a strong commitment towards the core ethical principles of research envisaged in the Declaration of Helsinki. Nevertheless, provisions on informed consent vary between these three countries. The differences range from the method and language in which information should be provided, through the amount of information required to be disclosed, to the form of documenting consent or withdrawal. In the case of research on vulnerable groups, these differences are particularly visible. The identified differences can negatively impact the ethical conduct of international clinical studies. Attention needs to be paid that flexibilities within national regulations are not misused to undermine the protection of research subjects. Achieving global or regional legislative harmonization might prove impossible. Such lack of legal consensus reinforces the significance of the international ethical agreements. Not applicable.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 2 11%
Student > Master 2 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Student > Bachelor 1 5%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 5%
Other 4 21%
Unknown 8 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 16%
Social Sciences 2 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Philosophy 1 5%
Unspecified 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 10 53%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 September 2022.
All research outputs
#2,338,109
of 25,802,847 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#230
of 1,120 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,481
of 456,529 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#9
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,802,847 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,120 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 456,529 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.