Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2008
What a signature adds to the consent process.
Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Informed consent-'da Vinci code' for our safety in empowered patient's safety.Surgical endoscopy · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background"Consent is a process by which a patient is informed and becomes a participant in decisions regarding their medical management." It is argued, however, that providing a signature to a form adds little to the quality of this process.
methodsViews regarding the consent ritual of nonselected patients undergoing endoscopy (cystoscopy or sigmoidoscopy) were prospectively studied together with those of the attending staff. Patient volunteers were randomly assigned to one of two groups and given verbal explanation before the procedure, either alone (group A) or with a request to sign a form in addition (group B). A standardized questionnaire regarding preferences then was applied.
resultsA total of 37 patients (22 men) were studied along with seven staff members. Most surveyed felt that signing a consent form helped to empower the patient (group A, 84%; group B, 83%; staff, 100%). Although the patients mainly believed that it functioned primarily to protect the hospital and doctor (group A, 89%; group B, 67%), only one patient (3% of total) felt that such a formality undermined the patient-doctor relationship. Most staff members favored signing a form (86%). The majority of patients either favored it (group A, 47%; group B, 78%) or expressed no strong preference (group A, 32%; group B, 11%). Interestingly, more women than men preferred signing (73 vs. 55%; p = 0.25), perhaps because more women believed that it functioned to preserve autonomy (93 vs. 77% of men). Age was no particular determinant of perspective.
conclusionAlthough it may be viewed as primarily serving to protect the doctor and hospital, the formal process of signing written consent forms appeals to patients and staff.
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.