ArticleBMC medical ethics2017
Core information sets for informed consent to surgical interventions: baseline information of importance to patients and clinicians.
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 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The patient and clinician experience of informed consent for surgery: a systematic review of the qualitative evidence.BMC medical ethics · 2020Pooled it
- How to effectively obtain informed consent in trauma patients: a systematic review.BMC medical ethics · 2019Pooled it
- Can teleconsent improve patient recall of surgical risks in knee arthroplasty? A randomised controlled trial.Irish journal of medical science · 2023Trial
- Informing Decision-Making About Caesarean Birth: A Delphi Study to Develop a Core Information Set.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2025Article
- Information standards for innovative surgery: what patients need to know.The British journal of surgery · 2025Article
- Streamlining the Journey of Research Into Clinical Practice: Making Your Patients and Practice Flourish Understanding and Setting Treatment Expectations for Patients With Metastatic Spine Tumors.Global spine journal · 2024Article
- Toward Shared Decision-Making in Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study.JMIR research protocols · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
- Development of a core outcome set for informed consent for therapy: An international key stakeholder consensus study.BMC medical ethics · 2022Article
- Article
- What empirical research has been undertaken on the ethics of clinical research in India? A systematic scoping review and narrative synthesis.BMJ global health · 2021Article
- Discussing surgical innovation with patients: a qualitative study of surgeons' and governance representatives' views.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Review
- Development of a core information set for colorectal cancer surgery: a consensus study.BMJ open · 2019Article
- Between the Reasonable and the Particular: Deflating Autonomy in the Legal Regulation of Informed Consent to Medical Treatment.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2019Article
- Timing of surgery in ulcerative colitis in the biologic therapy era-the patient's perspective.International journal of colorectal disease · 2018Article
- The COMET Handbook: version 1.0.Trials · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundConsent remains a crucial, yet challenging, cornerstone of clinical practice. The ethical, legal and professional understandings of this construct have evolved away from a doctor-centred act to a patient-centred process that encompasses the patient's values, beliefs and goals. This alignment of consent with the philosophy of shared decision-making was affirmed in a recent high-profile Supreme Court ruling in England. The communication of information is central to this model of health care delivery but it can be difficult for doctors to gauge the information needs of the individual patient. The aim of this paper is to describe 'core information sets' which are defined as a minimum set of consensus-derived information about a given procedure to be discussed with all patients. Importantly, they are intended to catalyse discussion of subjective importance to individuals. MAIN BODY: The model described in this paper applies health services research and Delphi consensus-building methods to an idea orginally proposed 30 years ago. The hypothesis is that, first, large amounts of potentially-important information are distilled down to discrete information domains. These are then, secondly, rated by key stakeholders in multiple iterations, so that core information of agreed importance can be defined. We argue that this scientific approach is key to identifying information important to all stakeholders, which may otherwise be communicated poorly or omitted from discussions entirely. Our methods apply systematic review, qualitative, survey and consensus-building techniques to define this 'core information'. We propose that such information addresses the 'reasonable patient' standard for information disclosure but, more importantly, can serve as a spring board for high-value discussion of importance to the individual patient.
conclusionThe application of established research methods can define information of core importance to informed consent. Further work will establish how best to incorporate this model in routine practice.
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.