ArticleJournal of Korean medical science2025
Informed Consent in Radiation Oncology: A Nationwide Survey of Institutions in Korea.
Article in Journal of Korean medical science, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to analyze the current radiotherapy (RT) consent forms in Korea and present inter-institutional variations in the content, format, and level of detail provided to patients across major cancer types.
methodsBetween June and October 2022, the Informatics Committee and Clinical Practice Guidelines Committee of the Korean Society for Radiation Oncology collected RT consent forms from board-certified radiation oncologists. The consent forms for six cancer types were analyzed, including the five most common cancers treated with RT in Korea (breast, lung, prostate, colorectal, and liver cancer) as well as head and neck cancers.
resultsForty-nine institutions (49% of 101 institutions) submitted their consent forms, including all 13 Regional Cancer Centers. Of these, 46 provided complete site- or cancer-specific forms for analysis, whereas one provided partial information and two used free-text forms. Seventy percent of institutions (33/47) clearly documented the purpose for RT. Seventy percent of institutions (33/47) categorized side effects as acute and chronic, whereas 30% (14/47) did not make this distinction. In addition to variations in categorizing acute and chronic side effects, a wide range of variations was observed in reporting the side effects of each cancer type. Most forms did not specify the probability of having side effects.
conclusionThis study uncovered notable inter-institutional variations in RT consent forms across Korea, especially in specifying side effects. These findings establish a basis for developing standardized consent forms, which could enhance patient-centered care, strengthen legal clarity, and promote ethical practices in radiation oncology.
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.