ArticleFrontiers in surgery2024
Improving risk communication: a proof-of-concept randomised control trial assessing the impact of visual aids for neurosurgical consent.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Statistical misreasoning in online content about vaccines: Implications and recommendations for addressing disinformation.PloS one · 2026Article
- Advancing Equity and Patient Partnership in Clinical Trials for Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Model for Inclusive Trial Design.Clinical and experimental gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Strategies to improve compliance with personal protective equipment use in the textile industry: a scoping review.BMC public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Informed consent is a fundamental component in the work-up for surgical procedures. Statistical risk information pertaining to a procedure is by nature probabilistic and challenging to communicate, especially to those with poor numerical literacy. Visual aids and audio/video tools have previously been shown to improve patients' understanding of statistical information. In this study, we aimed to explore the impact of different methods of risk communication in healthy participants randomized to either undergo the consent process with visual aids or the standard consent process for lumbar puncture. Material and methods: Healthy individuals above 18 years old were eligible. The exclusion criteria were prior experience of the procedure or relevant medical knowledge, lack of capacity to consent, underlying cognitive impairment and hospitalised individuals. After randomisation, both groups received identical medical information about the procedure of a lumbar puncture in a hypothetical clinical scenario via different means of consent. The control group underwent the standard consent process in current clinical practice (Consent Form 1 without any illustrative examples), whereas the intervention group received additional anatomy diagrams, the Paling Palette and the Paling perspective scale. Anonymised questionnaires were received to evaluate their perception of the procedure and its associated risks. Results: Fifty-two individuals were eligible without statistically significant differences in age, sex, professional status and the familiarity of the procedure. Visual aids were noted to improve the confidence of participants to describe the risks by themselves ( Conclusion: Visual aids could be an appropriate alternative method for medical consent without being inferior regarding the understanding of the procedure, its risks and its benefits. Future studies could possibly compare or incorporate multiple interventions to determine the most effective tools in a larger scale of population including patients as well as healthy individuals.
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.