ArticleEye (London, England)2012
Consent for cataract surgery training: a national trainers' survey.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ophthalmology residency trainers' perspective on standardization of residency training in India.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2021Article
- Montgomery in, Bolam out: are trainee surgeons 'material risks' when taking consent for cataract surgery?Eye (London, England) · 2020Review
- Association of Preoperative Disclosure of Resident Roles With Informed Consent for Cataract Surgery in a Teaching Program.JAMA ophthalmology · 2019Article
- Usefulness of Surgical Media Center as a Cataract Surgery Educational Tool.Journal of ophthalmology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo evaluate current trainers' attitudes and practices for informing patients about the trainee participation in cataract surgery within the United Kingdom.
methodsAn anonymous online survey was distributed to current cataract surgery trainers via all Royal College of Ophthalmologists' tutors within the United Kingdom. Trainers were asked specific questions about their current consent practice regarding trainee participation in the cataract surgery. Questions also targeted experiences of patient complaints about training.
resultsOne hundred and twenty-three trainers completed the survey. Ninety-three percent (n=114) of responders were consultants and 7% (n=8) were non-consultant career-grade doctors or other grades. A total of 34% (n=42) of responders stated that consent was usually taken by themselves or the trainee assigned to the list, whereas 26% (n=32) always took consent themselves. Sixty percent of responders (n=74) stated that consent is taken on the day of surgery; 59% (n=73) indicated consent is taken where listing takes place. Thirty-three percent (n=41) of trainers indicated that they had experienced patient dissatisfaction or complaints. Surgical complications, length of surgery, and discussions during surgery were the leading causes of complaints. Thirty-nine percent (n=48) would operate themselves if patients requested no trainee participation.
conclusionsThere is a wide variety in the current practice of disclosure and level of information given regarding trainee participation in surgery. This will influence patients' expectations, experiences, and satisfaction.
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.