ArticleJournal of vascular surgery2008
Informed consent for abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: assessing variations in surgeon opinion through a national survey.
Article in Journal of vascular surgery, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Informed consent for clinical treatment in low-income setting: evaluating the relationship between satisfying consent and extent of recall of consent information.BMC medical ethics · 2017Article
- A survey of doctors at a UK teaching hospital to assess understanding of recent changes to consent law.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2017Article
- A clinical and ethical review on late results and benefits after EVAR.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2017Review
- Content, accuracy and completeness of patient consent in a regional vascular surgery unit.Irish journal of medical science · 2015Article
- A survey of the current practice of the informed consent process in general surgery in the Netherlands.Patient safety in surgery · 2013Article
- P5 medicine: a plus for a personalized approach to oncology.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2011Article
- Pilot testing of a decision support tool for patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms.Journal of vascular surgery · 2011Article
- Limitations of online information on abdominal aortic aneurysm.International journal of vascular medicine · 2010Article
- Informed consent for abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: The patient's perspective.Journal of vascular surgery · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveInformed consent discussions for elective abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair should reflect appropriate risks of the open or endovascular repair (EVAR), but few guidelines exist describing what surgeons should discuss. This study examines expert opinion regarding what constitutes informed consent.
methodsDesign. We conducted an anonymous, web-based, national survey of vascular surgeons. Associations between surgeon characteristics and opinions regarding informed consent were measured using bivariate statistics; multivariable logistic regression was performed to estimate effects adjusted for covariates. Setting. Academic and private practice surgeons were surveyed. Subjects. United States members of the International Society for Vascular Surgery membership. Main Outcome Measure. Surgeons' self-reported opinions regarding the content of informed consent for AAA repair.
resultsA total of 199 surgeons completed the survey (response rate 51%). More than 90% of respondents reported that it was essential to discuss mortality risk for both procedures. However, only 60% and 30% of respondents reported that it was essential to discuss the risk of myocardial infarction and stroke, respectively. Opinions varied by procedure regarding the risks of impotence (32% vs 62%; EVAR vs open repair), reintervention (78% vs 17%), and rupture during long-term follow-up (57% vs 17%). Younger and private practice surgeons were more likely to discuss complications compared with older surgeons and those in academic practice. Surgeons who perform predominantly EVAR were more likely to quote higher mortality rates for open repair (odds ration [OR] = 3.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.4-6.4) and lower reintervention rates for EVAR (OR = 0.3, 95% CI = 0.1-0.7) compared with other surgeons.
conclusionsThis is the first study of the practice of informed consent for AAA repair. The only risk that the vast majority of surgeons agreed should be included in informed consent for AAA repair was mortality. Significant variation exists regarding whether other complications should be discussed and what complication rates should be quoted. Surgeon characteristics may influence how risks are presented to patients. Further efforts are needed to develop guidelines to ensure consistent communication of appropriate risk during informed consent for AAA repair.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.