Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37638239›Full record

ReviewAnnals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches2021

Improving Surgical Informed Consent: Unanswered Questions.

Steven E Raper, Justin T Clapp, Lee A Fleisher

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline 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. Article
  3. Review
  4. Not the Last Word: Informed Consent, Omakase Style.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2022
    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

3 authors.

Steven E RaperFrom the Department of Surgery, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Justin T ClappDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Lee A FleisherDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: This study reviews randomized clinical trials that have attempted to improve the process of informed consent. Consent should be guided by the ethical imperatives of autonomy, beneficence, and social justice. Summary Background: Informed consent is constantly evolving. Yet our review of the randomized trials done to improve the surgical informed consent process raises a number of questions: How does one define surgical informed consent? What interventions have been tried to measure and improve informed consent? Have the interventions in informed consent actually led to improvements? What efforts have been made to improve informed consent? And what steps can be taken to improve the process further? Methods: A literature search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs)on informed consent identified 70 trials. Demographics, interventions, assessments, and a semi-quantitative summary of the findings were tabulated. The assessments done in the RCTs, show the surrogate for patient autonomy was comprehension; for beneficence, satisfaction and mental state (anxiety or depression); and, for social justice, language, literacy, learning needs, and cost. Results: There were 4 basic categories of interventions: printed matter; non-interactive audiovisual tools; interactive multimedia; and a smaller group defying easy description. Improvement was documented in 46 of the 65 trials that studied comprehension. Thirteen of 33 trials showed improved satisfaction. Three of 30 studies showed an increase in anxiety. Few studies tried to assess primary language or literacy, and none looked at learning needs or cost. Conclusions: No single study improved all 3 principles of informed consent. Validated interventions and assessments were associated with greater impact on outcomes. All 3 ethical principles should be assessed; autonomy (as comprehension), beneficence (as satisfaction, anxiety), and social justice. Not enough consideration has been given to social justice; appropriate language translation, standardized reading levels, assessment of learning needs, and cost to the individual are all important elements worthy of future study.

Identifiers

PMID37638239
PMCPMC10455139

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.