Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33666674›Full record

ArticleDer Orthopade2021

[Informed consent for surgery: clearly regulated by the patient rights law-significant uncertainty among medical students : Legal analysis and inventory of over 2500 medical students in Berlin as part of the Progress Test Medicine].

R J Seemann, P Melcher, C Eder, J Deckena, R Kasch, S Fröhlich, M März, AG Lehre DGOU, M Ghanem

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Der Orthopade, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 35% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

R J SeemannCentrum für Muskuloskeletale Chirurgie, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Deutschland. ricarda.seemann@charite.de.
P MelcherKlinik und Poliklinik für Orthopädie, Unfallchirurgie und Plastische Chirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Leipzig, Liebigstraße 20, 04103, Leipzig, Deutschland.
C EderCentrum für Muskuloskeletale Chirurgie, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Deutschland.
J DeckenaGeschäftsbereich Recht, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Deutschland.
R KaschOrthopädische Klinik und Poliklinik, Universitätsmedizin Rostock, Doberaner Str. 142, 18057, Rostock, Deutschland.
S FröhlichOrthopädische Klinik und Poliklinik, Universitätsmedizin Rostock, Doberaner Str. 142, 18057, Rostock, Deutschland.
M MärzAG PTM, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Deutschland.
AG Lehre DGOU
M GhanemKlinik und Poliklinik für Orthopädie, Unfallchirurgie und Plastische Chirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Leipzig, Liebigstraße 20, 04103, Leipzig, Deutschland.
Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEUniversitätsmedizin Rostock · DEUniversity Hospital Leipzig · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundObtaining informed consent is a challenging task and is part of the educational objectives in the German NKLM. Teaching formats are inconsistent and time-consuming, with little emphasis on legal aspects, although they have moved into the focus of attention since the implementation of patient rights laws and play an important role in legal proceedings.

objectivesThe aim of this study was the evaluation of medical students' knowledge about the legal aspects of obtaining informed consent. A legal analysis was performed, and the patient rights laws were reviewed with reference to implications for undergraduate medical education. MATERIALS AND

methodsAfter the analysis of laws and jurisdiction, multiple-choice questions regarding the legal aspects of obtaining informed consent were created and placed in the Progress Test Medicine (PTM). A statistical analysis of the results of Berlin medical students was performed descriptively.

resultsThe answers of 2625 (winter semester 2018/19) and 2409 (summer semester 2019) medical students in Berlin were analyzed. The rate of students who answered the questions about the procedures requiring informed consent and adequate time for consideration increased over time but did not reach comparable values to all PTM questions. Questions about required content were answered correctly by 30 to 60% of the students, regardless of their level of training; we did not see an increase along with the time of study.

conclusionIn our study, we were able to show that medical students of all educational levels show tentativeness when it comes to the legal aspects of obtaining informed consent. Yet, the legal framework offers room for new teaching formats like "Co-Action", introduced in this paper for the first time, where students acquire informed consent while being supervised by the medical doctor in charge.

Indexed as

Students, MedicalBerlinHumansInformed ConsentPatient RightsUncertaintyCo-ActionInformed consentMedical jurisprudenceProfessional delegationUndergraduate medical education

Identifiers

PMID33666674
PMCPMC8571141
OpenAlexW3133816686

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.