ArticleBMC medical ethics2025
Evaluation of the surgical informed consent for elective and emergency surgeries in obstetrics and gynaecology in Saudi Arabia.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInformed consent (IC) represents one of the fundamental rights of patients in healthcare. An essential aspect of the IC process is providing patients with equal access to information to enable them to make the right decisions. However, failure to obtain IC undermines patient autonomy, lowers patient satisfaction, increases risks, and negatively affects the patient's trust in healthcare providers. This study aims to evaluate the surgical informed consent (SIC) process from the patient's perspective both for emergency and elective surgeries in obstetrics/genecology in Saudi Arabia.
methodsThis is a quantitative cross-sectional study. The study population included all hospitalized female patients who had undergone obstetric or gynaecological surgeries, from February 2021 to March 2021. The total sample size was 156 female patients.
resultsMost of the participants were married (96.2%) and unemployed (80.1%). The most performed surgery was caesarean Sect. (84%). Most of the patients were satisfied with their SIC experience which represents over 85%. No significant difference has been found between the elective and emergency surgeries. However, person-in-charge of SIC administration and the time provided to sign the IC were deemed to be significant predictors.
conclusionBased on the findings, it is recommended that physician take responsibility for the SIC administration rather than an unknown provider. It is also recommended to provide the patients with adequate time to understand the SIC. Furthermore, ensuring the availability of emotional support is critical for enhancing the patient experience. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.