ArticleAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2018
Current use of procedure specific consent forms for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
Article in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Role of procedure-specific consent forms in clinical practice: a systematic review.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- Article
- Morbidity following emergency and elective cholecystectomy: a retrospective comparative cohort study.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Evaluation of Textbook Outcome as a Composite Quality Measure of Elective Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy.JAMA network open · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Procedure specific consent forms (PSCFs) have been shown to improve consenting practice for a standardised list of complications. The aim of this study was to assess the current usage and quality of PSCFs in the National Health Service (NHS) for cholecystectomy, specifically comparing the listed complications with those mentioned on the NHS website. Methods A freedom of information request was sent to all NHS trusts asking whether they perform laparoscopic cholecystectomy and whether they have a PSCF for this. A copy of the PSCF was also requested. Complications stated on these forms were compared with those on the NHS Choices website. Results Overall, 162 (88%) of the 185 trusts responded, with 121 of these performing cholecystectomies. Among these, 20 (17%) currently use PSCFs; all provided a copy. Five (25%) of the PSCFs contained all eight risks mentioned on the NHS website. The number of risks listed varied from 4 to 18 per form. Only bile duct injury was listed on every PSCF. The least frequently mentioned complication (45% of forms) was the risk from general anaesthetic. Conclusions This study suggests that too few trusts are using PSCFs and that those PSCFs that are in use contain too little detail on the risks of cholecystectomy. The listed risks and incidences on each PSCF were highly variable. More trusts should begin to use PSCFs during the informed consent process and each PSCF should include a nationally standardised list of potential complications to act as a prompt for discussion (and documentation) of risk.
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.