METHODS: National principal investigators from 30 countries were asked if the original PIS/ICF was edited in their countries and, if so, to share with us the one used to recruit participants. We assessed whether the 25 different elements of information from the good clinical practice guidelines and the Declaration of Helsinki were present in, deficiently described, or absent from the PIS/ICFs.
RESULTS: Nineteen national principal investigators responded: eight (Argentina, Brazil, Ethiopia, Georgia, Iran, Lebanon, Lithuania, and Malaysia) stated that no edits were introduced to the original PIS/ICF; eight (Canada, Colombia, Philippines, India, Ireland, Pakistan, Portugal, and Switzerland) added some elements of information in the national PIS/ICF; and three (Italy, Peru, and Spain) reported not participating in the trial. None of the elements included in the original PIS/ICF were omitted from the edited PIS/IFC. Six elements of information were omitted and five deficiently described in the original PIS/ICF. The number of elements omitted from the edited PIS/ICFs varied (range = 2-5). Nine PIS/ICFs incompletely described or omitted the informing of study participants about the study results, while five deficiently described or omitted the anticipated expenses for trial participation. Information concerning whom to contact for more information or in case of injury was deficient in six PIS/ICFs. Unlike the original PIS/ICF, all edited PIS/ICFs informed participants about the existence of compensation or treatment for any injury related to the trial.
CONCLUSIONS: WHO should consider adding three of the omitted elements in PIS/ICFs of future multinational similar trials.
METHODS: Seventy-seven medical doctors and eighty nurses answered a self-administered questionnaire designed to capture demographic data and information regarding abbreviation use in medical practice. Comparisons were made between doctors and nurses with regards to frequency and reasons for using abbreviations; from where abbreviations were learned; frequency of encountering abbreviations in medical practice; prevalence of medical errors due to misinterpretation of abbreviations; and their ability to correctly interpret commonly used abbreviations.
RESULTS: The use of abbreviations was highly prevalent among doctors and nurses. Time saving, avoidance of writing sentences in full and convenience, were the main reasons for using abbreviations. Doctors learned abbreviations from fellow doctors while nurses learned from fellow nurses and doctors. More doctors than nurses reported encountering abbreviations. Both groups reported no difficulties in interpreting abbreviations although nurses reported often resorting to guesswork. Both groups felt abbreviations were necessary and an acceptable part of work. Doctors outperformed nurses in correctly interpreting commonly used standard and non-standard abbreviations.
CONCLUSION: The use of standard and non-standard abbreviation in clinical practice by doctors and nurses was highly prevalent. Significant variability in interpretation of abbreviations exists between doctors and nurses.