ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2025
Informed Consent in Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery: Patients' Perspective of a Tertiary Service Process.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisObtaining informed consent to surgery is essential for ethical, legal, and quality-care reasons. This study evaluates patients' understanding, experience, and satisfaction with the informed consent process prior to pelvic reconstructive surgery.
methodsA prospective study was conducted from April 2021 to April 2022, registered as a service evaluation project. It included all consenting women undergoing pelvic reconstructive surgery. A standardised questionnaire with closed and open-ended questions assessed patients' experiences and decision-making evaluated using the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS). Satisfaction was evaluated through a five-point Likert scale and a ten-point visual analogue scale (VAS) for response reliability.
resultsThe study included 87 patients with a mean age of 61.4 years (SD 11.4). A significant 96.6% read the consent form thoroughly, 98% affirmed detailed explanations by staff, and 88.5% found the explanation clear. Although 83.9% considered the surgery details sufficient, 16.1% found the information overly detailed or too brief. Most patients (91.9%) felt that they had ample time to think before signing, and 75.9% deemed both oral and written information helpful. Only 13.8% preferred medical staff to decide for them, whereas 55.2% valued being included in decision making. Key factors influencing satisfaction were detailed procedure information (72.4%) and reading the consent form (51.7%). The mean DCS score was 7, indicating a high level of satisfaction. Overall, 85% were very satisfied or satisfied with the consent process, with 89.7% scoring 8-10 on the VAS scale.
conclusionsA thorough consent process is associated with high patient satisfaction and facilitates shared decision making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39888384What 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.