Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35945581›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2022

Development of a core outcome set for informed consent for therapy: An international key stakeholder consensus study.

Liam J Convie, Joshua M Clements, Scott McCain, Jeffrey Campbell, Stephen J Kirk, Mike Clarke

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Operationalizing and Measuring Informed Choice in Health Care: An Umbrella Review.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. [Ethics considerations on brain-computer interface technology].Sheng wu yi xue gong cheng xue za zhi = Journal of biomedical engineering = Shengwu yixue gongchengxue zazhi · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
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

6 authors.

Liam J ConvieDepartment of General Surgery, Ulster Hospital, Upper Newtownards Road, Dundonald, Belfast, BT16 1RH, UK.
Joshua M ClementsDepartment of General Surgery, Ulster Hospital, Upper Newtownards Road, Dundonald, Belfast, BT16 1RH, UK. jclements13@qub.ac.uk.
Scott McCainDepartment of General Surgery, Ulster Hospital, Upper Newtownards Road, Dundonald, Belfast, BT16 1RH, UK.
Jeffrey CampbellDepartment of General Surgery, Ulster Hospital, Upper Newtownards Road, Dundonald, Belfast, BT16 1RH, UK.
Stephen J KirkDepartment of General Surgery, Ulster Hospital, Upper Newtownards Road, Dundonald, Belfast, BT16 1RH, UK.
Mike ClarkeDepartment of General Surgery, Ulster Hospital, Upper Newtownards Road, Dundonald, Belfast, BT16 1RH, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background300 million operations and procedures are performed annually across the world, all of which require a patient's informed consent. No standardised measure of the consent process exists in current clinical practice. We aimed to define a core outcome set for informed consent for therapy.

methodsThe core outcome set was developed in accordance with a predefined research protocol and the Core OutcoMes in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) methodology comprising systematic review, qualitative semi structured interviews, a modified Delphi process and consensus webinars to ratify outcomes for inclusion in the final core outcome set. (Registration- https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1024 ). Participants from all key stakeholder groups took part in the process, including patients and the public, healthcare practitioners and consent researchers.

results36 outcome domains were synthesised through systematic review and organised into a consent taxonomy. 41 semi-structured interviews were performed with all consent stakeholders groups. 164 participants from all stakeholder groups across 8 countries completed Delphi Round 1 and 125 completed Round 2. 11 outcomes met the 'consensus in' criteria. 6 met 'consensus in' all stakeholder groups and were included directly in the final core outcome set. 5 remaining outcomes meeting 'consensus in' were ratified over two consensus webinars. 9 core outcomes were included in the final core outcome set: Satisfaction with the quality and amount of information, Patient feeling that there was a choice, Patient feeling that the decision to consent was their own, Confidence in the decision made, Satisfaction with communication, Trust in the clinician, Patient satisfaction with the consent process, Patient rated adequacy of time and opportunity to ask questions.

conclusionThis international mixed-methods qualitative study is the first of its kind to define a core outcome set for informed consent for intervention. It defines what outcomes are of importance to key stakeholders in the consent process and is a forward step towards standardising future consent research.

Indexed as

Informed ConsentResearch DesignConsensusDelphi TechniqueHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CareTreatment OutcomeCore outcome setInformed consentSurgery

Identifiers

PMID35945581
PMCPMC9364552

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.