ArticleInternational journal of general medicine2012
Quality of informed consent for invasive procedures in central Saudi Arabia.
Article in International journal of general medicine, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Current state of ethical challenges reported in Saudi Arabia: a systematic review & bibliometric analysis from 2010 to 2021.BMC medical ethics · 2022Pooled it
- The knowledge-perception nexus: socio-linguistic disparities in surgical informed consent among patients at Ethiopian tertiary hospitals.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- Patient-reported gaps in use and quality of informed consent practices in dental care in Saudi Arabia: a regional cross-sectional survey.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the surgical informed consent for elective and emergency surgeries in obstetrics and gynaecology in Saudi Arabia.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Article
- Patient knowledge of surgical informed consent and shared decision-making process among surgical patients in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Patient safety in surgery · 2024Article
- Awareness of Medical Professionals Regarding Research Ethics in a Tertiary Care Hospital in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: A Survey to Assess Training Needs.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Patient satisfaction with surgical informed consent at Jimma Medical Center, Ethiopia.BMC medical ethics · 2022Article
- Ethical Considerations in Clinical Trials for Disorders of Consciousness.Brain sciences · 2022Article
- Patient Perception of Informed Consent and Its Associated Factors among Surgical Patients Attending Public Hospitals in Dessie City Administration, Northeast Ethiopia.Critical care research and practice · 2022Article
- Challenges of Obtaining Informed Consent in Emergency Ward: A Qualitative Study in One Iranian Hospital.The open nursing journal · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInformed consent is considered the most important step in clinical interventions. The aims of this study were (1) to assess the quality of informed consent for invasive procedures with regard to consent process and information given about risks and alternative treatments, and (2) to determine patients' attitude toward informed consent at King Abdulaziz Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted of 162 adult patients in different wards after undergoing surgery or invasive procedures within 1-2 days of signing the informed consent, using a previously validated interview questionnaire. Data on patients' characteristics, type of invasive procedure, and some informed consent-related issues were collected. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to identify the predictors of the percentage mean score of quality of informed consent, and significance was considered at P ≤ 0.05.
resultsThe quality of informed consent was generally poor (% mean score = 50.98 ± 17.49). About two-thirds of patients were told during the informed consent process that they have to sign merely as routine, 48% thought that if they refused the treatment plan they would lose the interest of the treating physician to help them, 42% thought that by saying no they would lose the good relationship with their physician, and 42.6% were not interested in having a copy of the informed consent document. Significantly higher quality was predicted when the physicians were the ones who explained the informed consent (t = 4.15, P < 0.001) and when informed consent was explained to younger patients (t = 2.754, P = 0.007). The overall attitude of the patients toward the process of informed consent was satisfactory (% mean score = 76.31 ± 7.63).
conclusionThe results suggest either that patients are not aware of their rights or that physician paternalism is practiced in Saudi Arabia. Cultural barriers should not be an argument to diminish the role of informed consent. Further studies should focus on how the value of autonomy can be appreciated in the Saudi culture.
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.