ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
Patient rights and consent form language about intraoperative audiovisual recording.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIntraoperative audiovisual recordings offer benefits in quality improvement, education, and research, but challenges hinder their routine use. No comprehensive guidelines exist on how intraoperative recordings should be communicated to patients, and no previous study has examined how informed consent documents (ICDs) address this topic. This study aims to analyze procedural consent forms for themes and readability of disclosures related to intraoperative audiovisual recording.
methodsICDs were collected from 104 high-volume U.S. hospitals identified via the American Hospital Association Annual Survey Database. Measures included hospital demographics (public/private, academic/non-academic, region, and Social Vulnerability Index), Flesch-Kincaid reading level, and audiovisual recording themes labeled by two independent researchers. Analyses examined the distribution of consent themes by hospital type and the association between reading level and the number of themes with U.S. census region, hospital type, and Social Vulnerability Index as covariates using ordinal logistic regressions.
resultsOf 104 ICDs, 70 contained text about procedural recording. All 70 forms discussed modality, 66 (94.3%) discussed recording purpose, 38 (54.3%) discussed patient safeguards, and 10 (14.3%) discussed patient rights. The median reading level was 15.0 (IQR: 12.5-17.7), equivalent to third year of college. Higher reading level (aOR = 1.14, 95% CI 1.04-1.24) and academic hospital status (aOR = 2.83, 95% CI 1.11-7.23) were associated with more subthemes.
conclusionMost ICDs addressed recording modality and purpose but inadequately covered safeguards and patient rights. The median reading level significantly exceeded the recommended sixth- to eighth-grade standard. These findings will help guide ICD development to include often overlooked themes and use accessible language about intraoperative recording.
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.