Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11711453›Full record

ArticleHeart (British Cardiac Society)2001

Risks of elective cardiac surgery: what do patients want to know?

N Beresford, L Seymour, C Vincent, N Moat

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heart (British Cardiac Society), 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

N BeresfordRoyal Brompton and Harefield NHS Trust, Sydney Street, London SW3 6NP, UK. n.beresford@rbh.nthames.nhs.uk
L Seymour
C Vincent
N Moat

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo examine patients' individual requirements for risk disclosure before surgery.

designStructured interview and questionnaire.

setting50 patients interviewed following coronary artery bypass grafting or valve replacement or repair.

main outcome measuresPatient assessment of the nature and probability of risks they would have wished to be informed of from a pool comprising death and 13 postoperative complications.

resultsOut of 50 patients, 21 (42%) wanted no risk information at all, 25 (50%) did not want to be advised of the risk of death, and 27 (54%) did not want information about the risk of permanent stroke. This contrasts with standard practice of routinely informing patients of the risk of death and stroke. However, there were pronounced individual patient preferences. Three groups of patients emerged: those requiring little or no risk information, those requiring information about major risks, and those requiring full risk disclosure. Patients were not generally concerned about the specific probabilities of any risk.

conclusionsClinicians counselling patients before operation should routinely discuss patient preferences before risk disclosure, distinguishing among a preference for "no risk information", "all potentially relevant risks", and "those risks considered significant or likely to occur". The fact of individual patient preferences may undermine the concept of the "reasonable patient" in determination of the legal requirements for risk disclosure. Future studies, in addition to replicating the present findings, should examine the reasons underlying individual patient preferences and the long term implications of degrees of risk disclosure, particularly when adverse outcomes occur.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overCoronary Artery BypassElective Surgical ProceduresFemaleHeart Valve Prosthesis ImplantationHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient Education as TopicPatient SatisfactionRisk AdjustmentRisk FactorsTruth Disclosure

Identifiers

PMID11711453
PMCPMC1729994

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.