ReviewBJS open2020
Achieving good-quality consent: review of literature, case law and guidance.
Review in BJS open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Integrating Shared Decision-Making into Undergraduate Oncology Education: A Pedagogical Framework.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2024Pooled it
- Austrian Pompe Outcome Consensus (APOC): a national Delphi study.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2026Article
- Structure and legibility of informed consent for clinical practice in Ecuador.Frontiers in medical technology · 2026Article
- Valid consent in the acute hospital setting: perspectives of nursing and medical professionals from a survey-based study.Irish journal of medical science · 2025Article
- Socioeconomic disparities and regional environment are associated with cervical lymph node metastases in children and adolescents with differentiated thyroid cancer: developing a web-based predictive model.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2024Article
- Harnessing Machine Learning to Personalize Web-Based Health Care Content.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInformed consent is an integral part of clinical practice. There is widespread agreement amongst health professionals that obtaining procedural consent needs to move away from a unidirectional transfer of information to a process of supporting patients in making informed, self-determined decisions. This review aimed to identify processes and measures that warrant consideration when engaging in consent-based discussions with competent patients undergoing elective procedures.
methodsFormal written guidance from the General Medical Council and Royal College of Surgeons of England, in addition to peer-reviewed literature and case law, was considered in the formulation of this review.
resultsA framework for obtaining consent is presented that is informed by the key tenets of shared decision-making (SDM), a model that advocates the contribution of both the clinician and patient to the decision-making process through emphasis on patient participation, analysis of empirical evidence, and effective information exchange. Moreover, areas of contention are highlighted in which further guidance and research are necessary for improved enhancement of the consent process.
conclusionThis SDM-centric framework provides structure, detail and suggestions for achieving meaningful consent.
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.