ArticlePloS one2025
Prohibiting Babel-A call for professional remote interpreting services in pre-operation anaesthesia information.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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.
- Safety and personalised care in maternity services of England for women whose preferred language is not English: a critical race theory analysis of interpreter experiences.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- Working experiences of remote interpreters in health care settings-insights from Austria and Germany.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Patient Satisfaction with Remote Pre-Anesthesia Assessment Via Telephone.Telemedicine reports · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLanguage barriers within clinical settings pose a threat to patient safety. As a potential impediment to understanding, they hinder the process of obtaining informed consent and uptake of critical medical information. This study investigates the impact of the current use of interpreters, with a particular focus on of engaging laypersons as interpreters, rather than professional interpreters potentially affecting patient safety. A further objective is to explore the reliability of phone-based telemedicine in terms of the retention of important medical facts.
methodsIn three groups (N per group = 30), we compared how using lay or professional interpreters affected non-German speaking patients' subjectively perceived understanding (understood vs. not understood) and recollection (recollected vs. not recollected) of information about general anaesthesia. Proficient German speaking patients served as the control group. Statistical analyses (χ2 tests and binomial) were calculated to show differences between and within the groups.
resultsAll three groups indicated similar, high self-reported levels of having understood the medical information provided. This was in stark contrast to the assessed objective recollection data. In the lay interpreter group, recollection of anaesthesia facts was low; only around half of participants recalled specific facts. For patients supported by professional interpreters, their recollection of facts about anaesthesia was significantly enhanced and elevated to the same level of the control group (fluent in German). Moreover, for these patients, providing information by means of phone-based telemedicine before anaesthesia yielded high levels of understanding and recollection of anaesthesia facts.
conclusionPhone-based telemedicine is a safe and reliable method of communication in the professional interpreter group and German speaking control group, but not in the lay interpreter group. Compared to lay interpreters, professional interpreters significantly improve patients' uptake of critical information about general anaesthesia, thus highlighting the importance of professional interpreters for patient safety and informed consent.
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.