Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 20, 2026

E-Patient Counseling Trial (E-PACO): Computer Based Education versus Nurse Counseling for Patients to Prepare for Colonoscopy
Published on: August 1, 2019
Participant informed consent in cluster randomized trials: review
Bruno Giraudeau1, Agnès Caille, Amélie Le Gouge
1INSERM, U738, Paris, France. giraudeau@med.univ-tours.fr
Insights
In cluster randomized trials (CRTs), participant consent and reporting are often inadequate. Improved reporting on consent and recruitment is crucial for assessing selection bias in these complex studies.
Area of Science:
- Medical Ethics
- Clinical Trials Methodology
- Public Health Research
Background:
- The Nuremberg Code establishes participant consent as fundamental in medical research.
- Cluster randomized trials (CRTs) present unique challenges for obtaining informed consent due to large group randomization and unavoidable interventions.
- Providing complete participant information in CRTs may introduce selection bias, impacting methodological rigor.
Purpose of the Study:
- To assess the requirement and type of participant informed consent in CRTs.
- To evaluate the risk of selection bias in CRTs due to the nature of participant information and recruitment.
- To examine the reporting standards of ethics committee approval and participant consent in CRTs.
Main Methods:
- Systematic review of CRT reports published in MEDLINE in 2008.
- Survey of corresponding authors to gather details on informed consent and participant inclusion processes.
- Analysis of 173 identified CRT reports, with responses from 113 authors (65.3%).
Main Results:
- 23.7% of CRT reports lacked essential ethics committee approval or participant consent information.
- Participant consent was for data collection only in 53.1% of studies, and group allocation was unspecified for participants in 58.5%.
- Only an estimated 56.6% of CRTs were free from potential selection bias due to incomplete reporting of the recruitment process.
Conclusions:
- Reporting on ethics committee approval and informed consent in CRTs is suboptimal.
- CRTs reports should clearly distinguish consent for intervention administration versus data collection.
- Full description of the participant recruitment process, including awareness of group allocation, is necessary for bias assessment.
Background:
The Nuremberg code defines the general ethical framework of medical research with participant consent as its cornerstone. In cluster randomized trials (CRT), obtaining participant informed consent raises logistic and methodologic concerns. First, with randomization of large clusters such as geographical areas, obtaining individual informed consent may be impossible. Second, participants in randomized clusters cannot avoid certain interventions, which implies that participant informed consent refers only to data collection, not administration of an intervention. Third, complete participant information may be a source of selection bias, which then raises methodological concerns. We assessed whether participant informed consent was required in such trials, which type of consent was required, and whether the trial was at risk of selection bias because of the very nature of participant information.
Methods And Findings:
We systematically reviewed all reports of CRT published in MEDLINE in 2008 and surveyed corresponding authors regarding the nature of the informed consent and the process of participant inclusion. We identified 173 reports and obtained an answer from 113 authors (65.3%). In total, 23.7% of the reports lacked information on ethics committee approval or participant consent, 53.1% of authors declared that participant consent was for data collection only and 58.5% that the group allocation was not specified for participants. The process of recruitment (chronology of participant recruitment with regard to cluster randomization) was rarely reported, and we estimated that only 56.6% of the trials were free of potential selection bias.
Conclusions:
For CRTs, the reporting of ethics committee approval and participant informed consent is less than optimal. Reports should describe whether participants consented for administration of an intervention and/or data collection. Finally, the process of participant recruitment should be fully described (namely, whether participants were informed of the allocation group before being recruited) for a better appraisal of the risk of selection bias.
Related Concept Videos
Randomized Experiments
Simple randomization
Simple...
Clinical Trials: Overview
Blinding
Clinical Trials
There are four phases in a clinical trial. A phase one...
Ethics in Research
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast, controlled...

