Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28235413›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2017

Presumed consent: licenses and limits inferred from the case of geriatric hip fractures.

Joseph Bernstein, Drake LeBrun, Duncan MacCourt, Jaimo Ahn

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Surgical consent by healthcare proxies does not delay surgery in older adult patients with hip fracture.OTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma · 2025
    Article
  2. Not the Last Word: Informed Consent, Omakase Style.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2022
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Impact of Age on Consent in a Geriatric Orthopaedic Trauma Patient Population.Geriatric orthopaedic surgery & rehabilitation · 2021
    Article
  5. Virtue Ethics in a Value-driven World: A Sliding Scale of Informed Consent.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Joseph BernsteinUniversity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA. Joseph.bernstein@uphs.upenn.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-9052-2897
Drake LeBrunUniversity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.
Duncan MacCourtHarvard Medical School, Boston, USA.
Jaimo AhnUniversity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.
University of Pennsylvania · USHarvard University · USSaint Joseph's University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHip fractures are common and serious injuries in the geriatric population. Obtaining informed consent for surgery in geriatric patients can be difficult due to the high prevalence of comorbid cognitive impairment. Given that virtually all patients with hip fractures eventually undergo surgery, and given that delays in surgery are associated with increased mortality, we argue that there are select instances in which it may be ethically permissible, and indeed clinically preferable, to initiate surgical treatment in cognitively impaired patients under the doctrine of presumed consent. In this paper, we examine the boundaries of the license granted by presumed consent and use the example of geriatric hip fracture to build an ethical framework for understanding the doctrine of presumed consent. DISCUSSION: The license to act under presumed consent requires three factors: patient incapacity, clinical urgency and clarity on the correct course of action. All three can apply to geriatric hip fracture. The typical patient frequently lacks capacity. Delays in initiating surgical treatment are associated with markedly increased mortality rates. Last, there appears to be consensus that surgery is the preferred treatment. Nonetheless, because there is a window of safe delay during which treating physicians can stabilize the patient, address reversible causes of cognitive impairment and identify surrogate decision makers, presumed consent should be invoked only as a method of last resort.

conclusionsA medical situation need not be characterized by risk of imminent and certain death for presumed consent to be relevant. Rather, there are two distinct windows that must be considered: the time interval in which action may be delayed without danger, and the time interval needed to obtain a better form of consent. Presumed consent is appropriate only when the latter exceeds the former.

Indexed as

Ethics, MedicalAgedAge FactorsDecision MakingEthical TheoryHip FracturesHumansInformed ConsentMental CompetencyPresumed ConsentRiskGeriatricsHip fracturesInformed consentPresumed consent

Identifiers

PMID28235413
PMCPMC5324244
OpenAlexW2589134608

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.