Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28852790›Full record

ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2017

Informed consent checklists for midurethral slings: a common-sense approach.

G Alessandro Digesu, Steven Swift, Victoria Handley

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International urogynecology journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

G Alessandro DigesuDepartment of Urogynaecology, Academic Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, St. Mary's Hospital, Mint Wing, South Wharf, London, W2 1NY, UK. a.digesu@imperial.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3914-8147
Steven SwiftDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
Victoria HandleyHandley Law Limited, Liverpool, England.
Handley Heating Services (United Kingdom) · GBMedical University of South Carolina · USSt Mary's Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisFollowing the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) warning about the use of transvaginal mesh to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and the use of single-incision slings to treat incontinence, the number of lawsuits for medical negligence regarding the use of any polypropylene mesh in the vagina has increased tremendously.

methodsThis same FDA document did not question the use of polypropylene midurethral slings and polypropylene for sacrocolpopexies. Surprisingly, despite all the evidence and recommendations from respected international scientific societies, we are constantly being called upon by our patients to defend the use of midurethral slings. The most common reasons for the new rash of medicolegal proceedings involving midurethral slings has to do with "breach of duties" resulting from undisclosed postoperative complications on the consent form and/or the lack of information in the medical records confirming that all possible alternative treatment options were presented to and discussed with the patient.

resultsOne response to these lawsuits involves the addition of preoperative checklists when performing informed consent with patients electing surgical correction of stress urinary incontinence (SUI).

conclusionsThis clinical opinion provides an expert clinician's perspectives and legal point of view on this controversial topic and discusses the role of a preoperative checklist supplementary to the standard informed consent form.

Indexed as

ChecklistFemaleGynecologic Surgical ProceduresHumansInformed ConsentSuburethral SlingsChecklistConsentLawsuitsMedical negligenceMeshMidurethral sling

Identifiers

PMID28852790
PMCPMC5655583
OpenAlexW2750894440

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.