ArticleBMC medical ethics2019
Using animal-derived constituents in anaesthesia and surgery: the case for disclosing to patients.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Consenting for intraoperative use of animal- and human-derived products: a case of the blind leading the blind?Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2026Article
- Jewish Perspectives on Porcine Xenotransplantation: Balancing Religious Ethics and Medical Necessity in Israel.Journal of religion and health · 2026Article
- Beyond Side Effect: Immuno-Ethical Risk Analysis of Animal-Derived Ingredients in Pharmaceuticals.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2026Review
- The unseen animal behind medicine: exploring considerations of animal-derived medications and anaesthetics in today's landscape.BJA open · 2025Review
- Animal-derived ingredients in medicines: a framework for ethical prescribing practices.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Review
- Review
- Are vegans being overlooked in our prescribing practices: An orthopaedic perspective from Bristol, United Kingdom.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2023Review
- Should parents be asked to consent for life-saving paediatric interventions?Journal of the Intensive Care Society · 2021Review
- An international multidisciplinary peer-driven consensus on the optimal use of hemostatic powders in surgical practice.Updates in surgery · 2021Article
- A review of the use of biological mesh products in modern UK surgical practice: a religious and cultural perspective.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2020Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAnimal-derived constituents are frequently used in anaesthesia and surgery, and patients are seldom informed of this. This is problematic for a growing minority of patients who may have religious or secular concerns about their use in their care. It is not currently common practice to inform patients about the use of animal-derived constituents, yet what little empirical data does exist indicates that many patients want the opportunity to give their informed consent. DISCUSSION: First we review the nature and scale of the problem by looking at the groups who may have concerns about the use of animal-derived constituents in their care. We then summarise some of the products used in anaesthesia and surgery that can contain such constituents, such as anaesthetic drugs, surgical implants and dressings. Finally, we explore the problem of animal-derived constituents and consent using Beauchamp and Childress' four principles approach, examining issues of autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence and justice. Disclosing the use of animal-derived constituents in anaesthesia and surgery is warranted under Beauchamp and Childress' four principles approach to the problem. Although there exist systemic and practical challenges to implementing this in practice, the ethical case for doing so is strong. The Montgomery ruling presents additional legal reason for disclosure because it entails that patients must be made aware of risks associated with their treatment that they attach significance to.
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.