ArticleBMC research notes2026
Assessment of informed-consent knowledge and practice among ophthalmologists at a Saudi tertiary ophthalmology hospital.
Article in BMC research notes, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe purpose and objective of the research presented here is to evaluate how ophthalmologists at King Khaled Eye Specialist Hospital understand and implement informed consent in daily clinical practice and to determine whether knowledge, attitudes, and practices differ according to demographic or professional characteristics.
resultsA cross-sectional survey was completed by 60 ophthalmologists, including consultants and fellows, assessing legal and ethical knowledge, perspectives on shared decision-making and risk disclosure, and routine consent practices. Results showed strong overall awareness and positive attitudes. Most participants reported a high level of understanding of informed consent, nearly all affirmed that consent must precede procedures, and all recognized the importance of discussing risks, benefits, and alternatives. The majority indicated that their consent forms include essential elements, and most selected comprehensive cataract surgery risk disclosures. Patient-centered attitudes were prominent, with nearly all endorsing shared decision-making, clear explanations, and encouraging patient questions. However, variation emerged in practice: while most consistently documented consent discussions, a notable proportion reported consent-related challenges and sought legal advice when uncertain. These findings highlight strong conceptual understanding alongside practical variability in implementation. This data represents a singular observational study and is not affiliated with any other research initiative.
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.