ArticleBritish dental journal2018
The future of failure to warn in dentistry after Montgomery: reflections from Australia.
Article in British dental journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The switch from the standard of the reasonable professional, to that of the reasonable patient in cases where it is alleged that a health professional has not imparted sufficient information to allow the gaining of valid consent, has created anxiety and confusion within the dental profession. The ruling in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board is relatively young; there have been insufficient subsequent cases to truly allow a deep exploration of the real changes that the case will bring to the way dentistry and other health activities are provided. One way that light may be shone onto the significance of Montgomery is to examine the development of the law in this area from Australia. Australia and the UK share a common history and while each legal system is independent from the other, they hold significant influence upon each other's destiny. This article seeks to shed light on the true relevance of Montgomery to dentistry in the UK through examination of the Australian position towards the gaining of valid consent which has enjoyed somewhat of a head-start in this area of the law.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29326449What 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.