ArticleTurkish journal of surgery2018
Evaluation of the readability of informed consent forms used in urology: Is there a difference between open, endoscopic, and laparoscopic surgery?
Article in Turkish journal of surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing the Readability, Quality, and Reliability of Online Patient Information Materials Related to Sarcopenia.Cureus · 2025Article
- Patient rights and consent form language about intraoperative audiovisual recording.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Readability of Informed Consent Forms for Medical and Surgical Clinical Procedures: A Systematic Review.Clinics and practice · 2025Review
- Large Language Model-Based Chatbot vs Surgeon-Generated Informed Consent Documentation for Common Procedures.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Generative AI in urology: rethinking patient counselling and shared decision-making - a scoping review from the European Association of Urology Patient Office.Therapeutic advances in urologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study is to evaluate the readability levels of informed consent forms used in Turkey before urological surgery and to compare the readability levels of open, endoscopic, and laparoscopic surgical informed consent forms. MATERIAL AND
methodsA total of 529 informed consent forms used for urological open, endoscopic, and laparoscopic surgical procedures were collected from different hospitals in Turkey. Evaluating informed consent forms that have exactly the same text only once, a total of 69 consent forms were evaluated. The Gunning Fog Index and Flesch-Kincaid test measuring the general readability level were used to calculate the readability level of informed consent forms in addition to the Ateşman and Bezirci-Yılmaz formulas defined to determine the readability level of Turkish texts. Informed consent forms were evaluated and divided into three groups as open, endoscopic, and laparoscopic surgery forms, depending on their content.
resultsAmong 69 informed consent forms evaluated, 35 were open, 19 were endoscopic, and 15 were laparoscopic surgery consent forms. The readability level of all informed consent forms was detected as average according to the Ateşman formula, very difficult according to the Flesch-Kincaid test, difficult according to the Gunning Fog Index, and at the high school education level according to the Bezirci-Yılmaz formula. A statistical evaluation of the three groups did not show a significant difference in the readability level.
conclusionIn this study, it was detected that the informed consent form readability levels used for urological surgical procedures in our country were rather low. We think that the cooperation of the concerned institutions is required for the revision of the consent information texts available and the improvement of the texts according to the strategies recommended.
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.