ArticleDer Radiologe2020
[Success, satisfaction and improvement of informed consents for computed tomography : A survey among patients and physicians].
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Before the examination: digital check-in].Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Limitations of informed consent in routine clinical practice - An observational survey study to characterize patient populations with limited understanding of the routine informed consent process in an anaesthesia clinic.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Observational
- [Consent interview 3.0].Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2023Article
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
backgroundProviding informed consent before a computed tomography (CT) is important for the physicians and the patients. A personal interview about the procedure, risks, and possible alternatives is mandatory before a CT examination.
methodsA survey was carried out on patient satisfaction with regard to the duration and content of informed consents of CT examinations. Physicians were also interviewed about the duration and content of CT informed consents. Another part of the survey dealt with the acceptance of technical innovations, such as information videos or tablets/PCs.
resultsA total of 512 patients and 106 physicians took part in the survey. The duration of the informed consent was estimated by the patients to be 4.08 min on average and 4.7 min by the physicians. The most detailed information given by the physicians regards side effects associated with contrast agents. Less information was given on possible diagnostic alternatives and the need for an examination. According to this, about 92% of all patients did not remember having received information about alternative examinations. Furthermore, 88.7% of the patients and 95.3% of the physicians recommended informed consent using interactive videos and animations, and 74% of the patients and 98.8% of the physicians recommended answering questions on tablet/PC.
conclusionPatients estimated the duration of a CT informed consent to be a little bit shorter, although some patients did not remember the content very well. The acceptance of technical innovations was very high among the participants. The use of information videos and tablets/PCs could increase the success of providing informed 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.