ArticleDer Radiologe2020
[Analysis of documented informed consent forms for computed tomography : Completeness and data quality in four clinics].
Article in Der Radiologe, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Design, implementation and analysis of a quality assurance process for Informed Consents using the DZHK registry TORCH-DZHK1 as an example.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- The benefits of fully electronic consent management and consent collection via a tablet PC in supporting time-critical pandemic research-an example from a NAPKON COVID-19 project.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- We Know What You Agreed To, Don't We?-Evaluating the Quality of Paper-Based Consents Forms and Their Digitalized Equivalent Using the Example of the Baltic Fracture Competence Centre Project.Methods of information in medicine · 2023Article
- Digitized and structured informed patient consent before contrast-enhanced computed tomography: feasibility and benefits in clinical routine.Insights into imaging · 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
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBefore performing a medical procedure, such as a computed tomography, an obligatory informed consent of the patient and its detailed documentation is necessary.
methodsA total of 1424 informed consent forms for contrast-enhanced computed tomography from four clinics with different healthcare levels were analyzed. Informed consent forms were evaluated related to completeness, legibility and quality.
resultsIn all, 1110 (77.9%) informed consent forms were sufficiently completed, 267 patients (18.8%) answered the form incompletely and 47 patients (3.3%) returned it without answering a question. Handwritten comments were found in 1391 (97.7%) cases. Thereof, 1329 (93.3%) were graded as detailed comments and 62 (4.4%) as less detailed comments. These comments were well legible in 675 (47.4%) cases, 558 (39.2%) informed consents showed limited legibility and in 158 (11.1%) more than 50% of the comments were unreadable. Signatures were complete in 1374 (96.5%) informed consent forms.
conclusionThe results show a better quality and documentation of informed consent forms for computed tomography obtained by radiology residents compared to radiological specialists. Compared to the radiologists, the non-radiologists performed significantly worse. The establishment of videos and use of digital informed consent forms could provide a possible solution.
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.