Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28528481›Full record

ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2017

Consent: an event or a memory in lumbar spinal surgery? A multi-centre, multi-specialty prospective study of documentation and patient recall of consent content.

William B Lo, Ciaran P McAuley, Martin J Gillies, Patrick J Grover, Erlick A C Pereira

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Are we meeting the standards set for informed consent in spinal surgery?Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2023
    Article
  3. Article
  4. The Michel Benoist and Robert Mulholland yearly European Spine Journal Review: a survey of the "surgical and research" articles in the European Spine Journal, 2017.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2018
    Review
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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

William B LoDepartment of Neurosurgery, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Ciaran P McAuleyAcademic Neurosurgery Unit, St George's, University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7036-8033
Martin J GilliesDepartment of Neurosurgery, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK.
Patrick J GroverDepartment of Neurosurgery, Charing Cross Hospital, London, UK.
Erlick A C PereiraAcademic Neurosurgery Unit, St George's, University of London, London, UK. eacp@eacp.co.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-0452-4023
St George's, University of London · GBCharing Cross Hospital · GBJohn Radcliffe Hospital · GBQueen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

designProspective, multi-centre, multi-specialty medical notes review and patient interview. PURPOSE: The consenting process is an important communication tool which also carries medico-legal implications. While written consent is a pre-requisite before spinal surgery in the UK, the standard and effectiveness of the process have not been assessed previously. This study assesses standard of written consent for elective lumbar decompressive surgery for degenerative disc disease across different regions and specialties in the UK; level of patient recall of the consent content; and identifies factors which affect patient recall.

methodsConsent forms of 153 in-patients from 4 centres a, b, c, d were reviewed. Written documentation of intended benefits, alternative treatments and operative risks was assessed. Of them, 108 patients were interviewed within 24 h before or after surgeries to assess recall.

resultsThe written documentation rates of the operative risks showed significant inter-centre variations in haemorrhage and sphincter disturbance (P = 0.000), but not for others. Analysis of pooled data showed variations in written documentation of risks (P < 0.0005), highest in infection (96.1%) and lowest in recurrence (52.3%). For patient recall of these risks, there was no inter-centre variation. Patients' recall of paralysis as a risk was highest (50.9%) and that of recurrence was lowest (6.5%). Patients <65 years old recalled risks better than those ≥65, significantly so for infection (29.9 vs 9.7%, P = 0.027). Patients consented >14 days compared to <2 days before their surgeries had higher recall for paralysis (65.2 vs 43.7%) and recurrence (17.4 vs 2.8%). Patient recall was independent of consenter grade.

conclusionOverall, the standard of written consent for elective lumbar spinal decompressive surgery was sub-optimal, which was partly reflected in the poor patient recall. While consenter seniority did not affect patient recall, younger age and longer consent-to-surgery time improved it.

Indexed as

DocumentationMental RecallNeurosurgical ProceduresAgedHumansInformed ConsentMiddle AgedProspective StudiesSpineConsentLumbarMedico-legalRisksSpinal surgery

Identifiers

PMID28528481
OpenAlexW2615242907

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.