Trial reportFemale pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery2020
Effect of Visual Aids During Surgical Consents on Patient Understanding and Satisfaction.
Trial report in Female pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery, 2020. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
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
4 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to assess whether the use of visual aids to augment the consent process for pelvic floor surgeries affects patient understanding and satisfaction.
methodsWe conducted a single-blind, randomized controlled trial. Adults planning robotic sacrocolpopexy or suburethral sling surgeries were eligible. All participants received standard preoperative consent counseling. Participants randomized to the intervention also viewed slides with visual aids that paralleled standard counseling; participants randomized to the control group received only standard counseling. All participants completed surveys after their preoperative visit, the day of surgery, and at their postoperative visit. Each survey contained 12 true-false questions about risks, benefits, and alternatives of surgery, and expectations during recovery. The primary outcome was the percentage of correct true-false questions. We conducted an intention-to-treat analysis.
resultsWe randomized 32 participants undergoing robotic sacrocolpopexy and 32 undergoing suburethral sling surgeries, yielding 16 in the intervention group and 16 in the control group for each procedure. The intervention and control groups for both surgeries were similar in age, body mass index, race, education, and previous surgery for similar symptoms.Among participants undergoing robotic sacrocolpopexies, median knowledge scores at the preoperative visit were similar between the intervention (92% [interquartile range {IQR}, 86%-100%]) and control (86% [IQR, 75%-94%]) groups (P = 0.21). Similar results were seen for participants undergoing suburethral sling procedures in the intervention (83.3% [IQR, 71%-92%]) and control (83% [IQR, 75%-88%]) groups (P = 0.64).
conclusionsWe found that using visual aids during the consent process for patients undergoing robotic sacrocolpopexy or suburethral sling surgeries did not improve knowledge.
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.