Send to

Choose Destination
Am Heart J. 2000 Jul;140(1):94-7.

Is informed consent to clinical trials an "upside selective" process in acute coronary syndromes?

Author information

Department of Cardiology, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.



Patient understanding of clinical trial details was assessed on 2 occasions (10 +/- 4 and 24 +/- 3 hours after randomization) in 20 patients enrolled for randomized investigation of pharmacotherapy for unstable angina pectoris or non-Q-wave myocardial infarction in the Platelet IIb/IIIa Antagonist for the Reduction of Acute Coronary Syndrome Events in a Global Organized Network (PARAGON B) and Organization to Assess Strategies in Ischemic Syndromes (OASIS-2) trials.


Initial total score for understanding of 52.0% (+/-15.7%) of maximal values improved to 67.7% (+/-18.3%) at repeat interview (P <.001). The mean initial score for knowledge of potential benefit was 85.0% (+/-33.3%) with no significant improvement at repeat interview. Scores for knowledge of risk improved from 35.0% (+/-36.6%) to 68.2% (+/-41.2%) at repeat interview (P <.005). Significant determinants of poor initial score were female sex, limited education, and presence of pain during the consent process; young age was the only determinant of improvement on repeat assessment.


Thus initial understanding of the research protocols for patients with unstable angina pectoris or non-Q-wave acute myocardial infarction was imperfect, with far greater impairment of knowledge of risk than of benefit.

[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center