ArticleiGIE : innovation, investigation and insights2024
Informed consent in endoscopy: Read, understood, or just signed?
Article in iGIE : innovation, investigation and insights, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05414435 (Informed Consent in Endoscopy), which is not on this 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.
Informed Consent in Endoscopy: Read, Understood or Merely Signed?
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Impact of video -based incentive on patient willingness to read the informed consent form with comprehension before minimally-invasive surgery: a randomized controlled trial.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Although informed consent is a requirement for all interventional procedures such as those in GI endoscopy, its standardization is a challenge. Very thorough documents have been proposed, but it is unknown whether patients actually read them. We evaluated if patients read and understand informed consent forms and information leaflets for GI endoscopy. Methods: This single-center, prospective, observational study was performed between April 2021 and April 2022 and included adult patients proposed for outpatient elective EGD and colonoscopy. Informed consent forms and information leaflets were mailed to patients, with a small text instruction added to the informed consent form. Before endoscopy, we assessed whether patients adequately read the informed consent form, based on patient signature, table questionnaire completion, and performance of the text instruction. Results: The study included 232 patients (50.6% men; mean age, 63.8 ± 12.76 years). Most had only a basic education (78.0%) and had previously undergone GI endoscopy (90.6%). Of the patients, 86.6% stated they had read the form and 13.4% did not. Although most signed the form (83.6%), only 24.6% adequately read and understood it. No statistically significant association between an adequate reading of the informed consent form and any of the assessed variables was found. Conclusions: Despite the timely provision of information, most patients do not read or adequately understand the provided documents. It is necessary to develop new strategies to enhance patients' involvement in decision-making, thus improving the doctor-patient relationship in obtaining informed consent. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT05414435.).
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.