ArticleInsights into imaging2022
Digitized and structured informed patient consent before contrast-enhanced computed tomography: feasibility and benefits in clinical routine.
Article in Insights into imaging, 2022. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Before the examination: digital check-in].Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Authorized surrogate presence and its association with early in-hospital delays and outcomes in acute ischemic stroke.International journal of emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Standardised Request and Contrast Consent Forms to Enhance Clinical Learning in Radiography Education.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate the feasibility and benefits of digitized informed patient consent (D-IPC) for contrast-enhanced CT and compare digitized documentation with paper-based, conventional patient records (C-PR).
methodsWe offered D-IPC to 2016 patients scheduled for a CT. We assessed patient history (e.g., CT examinations, malignant or cardiovascular diseases) and contraindications (red flags) for a CT (e.g., thyroid hyperfunction, allergies) using a tablet device. We evaluated the success rate of D-IPC and compared patient age between the subgroups of patients who were able or unable to complete D-IPC. We analyzed the prevalence of marked questions and red flags (RF). RF were compared with the documentation from C-PR. We estimated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for paperless workflow and provide a cost-benefit analysis.
resultsOverall, 84.4% of patients completed D-IPC. They were younger (median 61 years) than unsuccessful patients (65 years; p < 0.001). Patients who marked questions (21.7%) were older than patients without inquiries (median 63.9 vs 59.5 years; p < 0.001). The most prevalent RF was thyroid disease (23.8%). RF were considered critical for contrast-agent injection in 13.7%, requiring personalized preparation. The detection rate for RF documented with D-IPC was higher than for C-PR (n = 385 vs. 43). GHG emissions for tablet production are 80-90 times higher than for paper production. The estimated costs were slightly higher for D-IPC (+ 8.7%).
conclusionD-IPC is feasible, but patient age is a relevant factor. Marked questions and RF help personalize IPC. The availability of patient history by D-IPC was superior compared to C-PR.
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.