ArticleCanadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie2021
Are patients truly informed? A retrospective chart review of the documentation of informed consent in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
Article in Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie, 2021. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bile Duct Injury and Litigation in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Global Review of Current and Future Preventative Initiatives.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2025Review
- Nursing Roles in the Quality of Information in Informed Consent Forms of a Spanish County Hospital.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2024Article
- Formal Quality and Compliance of Informed Consent Forms in Critical Care and Surgical Areas in Spain: An Observational Study.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2022Article
- Current Practices, Limitations, and Recommendations for Informed Consent Education in Medical Students and Physicians: A Scoping Review.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentReview
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Research on informed consent (IC) has traditionally focused on the documentation of the discussion with patients of potential complications. We sought to examine the completeness of documentation for all elements of IC for laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC): potential complications, alternatives to LC and details of the procedure. Differences in the documentation of IC for elective and emergent LC were examined. Methods: A retrospective chart review of patients undergoing LC at our institution between 2015 and 2017 was performed. Completeness of documentation was defined as documentation of all 3 elements of IC in the clinic note, the operating room note or the consent form itself. Data were analyzed descriptively. We compared documention for emergent and elective cases as well as documentation by residents and attending physicians using t tests. Results: A total of 270 patients were included in the analysis. Only 5 (2%) had complete documentation of all elements of IC. Documentation of potential complications was noted in 232 cases (86%), of which 58 (25%) were elective and 174 (75%) were emergent. Details were noted in 28 (10%) cases, of which 21 (75%) were elective and 7 (25%) were emergent. Alternatives were documented the least frequently: they were documented in 23 cases (9%), of which 20 (87%) were elective and 3 (13%) were emergent. Residents performed better than attending physicians in documenting IC discussions in clinic notes and on consent forms, but not in operating room notes. Conclusion: Documentation of the elements of IC for LC was poor. Potential complications were the most frequently documented element of IC; alternatives and details were often omitted. Future studies comparing audiotaped IC conversations with the documentation of IC are warranted. The use of procedure-specific consent forms for LC may facilitate documentation.
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.