ArticleBMC oral health2026
Patient-reported gaps in use and quality of informed consent practices in dental care in Saudi Arabia: a regional cross-sectional survey.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
backgroundInformed consent is a process by which a patient can understand all the aspects of the treatment, including procedures benefits, potential risks, advantages, disadvantages, and purpose of treatment and alternative treatments. Informed consent assists the patient to make an informed decision whether to accept or refuse treatment.
methodsA cross-sectional, non-probability online survey study that targeted adult dental patients with previous dental experience in the Eastern province of Saudi Arabia. An online survey using Survey Monkey was sent through social media platforms including Twitter, Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp.
resultsSeven hundred and thirteen (713) individuals responded to the survey. This was a 25% response rate. Of respondents, 585 (82%) had previous dental treatment and were included in analyses. Around 50% of responded reported they were always informed of the risks, understood the risks, were informed of the alternative treatment options and understood these alternatives. Most responded were rarely or never been informed of specific complications or risks prior to root canal treatment (possibility of instrument breakage 85% of, perforation 77%) or tooth extraction (possibility of tooth fracture 92%, temporary nerve damage 91%, or dry socket 71%). Patients treated in private clinics had 3.6‑fold higher odds of not signing consent compared to those treated in government clinics (OR = 3.58, 95% CI: 2.55-5.04). Older age (> 28 years) was also a significant predictor, with 1.4-fold higher odds of rarely/never signing (OR = 1.40, 95% CI: 1.02-1.92).
conclusionsThe findings suggest that the quality and use of informed consent practices in dental settings in Saudi Arabia vary considerably. These findings suggest potential gaps requiring further evaluation, procedure-specific consent protocols to align with national and international standards.
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.