ArticleAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2017
Informed consent and the readability of the written consent form.
Article in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 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
22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Digital informed consent for paediatric spinal surgery: a patient-centric evaluation of eConsent utilization.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2026Article
- A Pilot Study to Explore Length and Readability Characteristics of Subject Information Sheets/Informed Consent Forms of Clinical Trial Applications in the EU.Clinical and translational science · 2026Article
- Article
- Optimizing Perioperative Care in Esophageal Surgery: The EUropean PErioperative MEdical Networking (EUPEMEN) Collaborative for Esophagectomy.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Readability of Informed Consent Forms for Medical and Surgical Clinical Procedures: A Systematic Review.Clinics and practice · 2025Review
- The development and validation of a decision aid to enhance shared decision-making for the management of actinic keratosis.Skin health and disease · 2024Article
- Unveiling readability challenges: An extensive analysis of consent document accessibility in clinical trials.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2024Article
- Simulated anesthesia consent discussions demonstrate high level of comprehension and education requirements for patients: A pilot study.PEC innovation · 2023Article
- Informed Written Consent for Emergency and Elective General Surgery at a Model 4 Hospital: A Closed-Loop Audit.Cureus · 2023Article
- Large Language Model-Based Chatbot vs Surgeon-Generated Informed Consent Documentation for Common Procedures.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Informed consent and living wills: comparative analysis of the legislation in Latin America.Revista de bioetica y derecho & perspectivas bioeticas · 2023Article
- Patients' and Healthcare Professionals' Perspectives on Preoperative Informed Consent Procedure Obstacles and Potential Solutions, 2021: A Qualitative Study.Patient preference and adherence · 2023Article
- Article
- Poor compliance documenting informed consent in trauma patients with distal radius fractures compared to elective total knee arthroplasty.ANZ journal of surgery · 2022Article
- Academic and community hernia center websites in the United States fail to meet healthcare literacy standards of readability.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2022Article
- Article
- How informed is the informed consent?Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2021Article
- Written Informed Consent-Translating into Plain Language. A Pilot Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- The quality of consent form structure in biomedical research: a study from Jordan and Sudan.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction The aim of this study was to objectively ascertain the level of readability of standardised consent forms for orthopaedic procedures. Methods Standardised consent forms (both in summary and detailed formats) endorsed by the British Orthopaedic Association (BOA) were retrieved from orthoconsent.com and assessed for readability. This involved using an online tool to calculate the validated Flesch reading ease score (FRES). This was compared with the FRES for the National Health Service (NHS) Consent Form 1. Data were analysed and interpreted according to the FRES grading table. Results The FRES for Consent Form 1 was 55.6, relating to the literacy expected of an A level student. The mean FRES for the BOA summary consent forms (n=27) was 63.6 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 61.2-66.0) while for the detailed consent forms (n=32), it was 68.9 (95% CI: 67.7-70.0). All BOA detailed forms scored >60, correlating to the literacy expected of a 13-15-year-old. The detailed forms had a higher FRES than the summary forms (p<0.001). Conclusions This study demonstrates that the BOA endorsed standardised consent forms are much easier to read and understand than the NHS Consent Form 1, with the detailed BOA forms being the easiest to read. Despite this, owing to varying literacy levels, a significant proportion of patients may struggle to give informed consent based on the written information provided to them.
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.