ReviewJournal of neurology2024
Informed consent practices for acute stroke therapy: principles, challenges and emerging opportunities.
Review in Journal of neurology, 2024. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Emergency consent pathways in acute ischemic stroke trials: determinants, consequences, and stakeholder attitudes-an evidence-mapping study.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Who Obtains Informed Consent for Endovascular Thrombectomy in Acute Stroke? A Survey of Clinicians.The Neurohospitalist · 2026Article
- Healing beyond the physical: Ethical approaches to emotional support in post-stroke recovery.African journal of disability · 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
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
importanceInformed consent (IC) plays a crucial yet underexplored role in acute stroke treatment, particularly in the context of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) and endovascular thrombectomy (EVT). This narrative review examines data on current IC practices in acute ischemic stroke management, specifically for patients treated with IVT or EVT, with the aim of identifying areas for improvement and strategies to enhance the IC process. OBSERVATIONS: IC practices for IVT vary significantly among hospitals and physicians with the frequency of always requiring consent ranging from 21 to 37%. Factors influencing IC for IVT include patient decision-making capacity, standard of care, time sensitive nature of treatments, legal and moral obligations, risk of complications, physician age and speciality, treatment delays, and hospital size. Consent requirements tend to be stricter for patients presenting within the 3-4.5-h window. The content and style of information shared as part of the IC process revealed discrepancies in the disclosure of stroke diagnosis, IVT mechanism, benefits, and risks. Research on IC practices for EVT is scarce, highlighting a concerning gap in the available evidence base. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This review underscores the significant variability and knowledge gaps in IC for EVT and IVT. Challenges related to decision-making capacity assessment and the absence of standardised guidance substantially contributes to these gaps. Future initiatives should focus on simplifying information delivery to patients, developing formal tools for assessing capacity, standardising ethical frameworks to guide physicians when patients lack capacity and harmonizing IC standards across sites. The ultimate goal is to enhance IC practices and uphold patient autonomy, while ensuring timely treatment initiation.
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.