Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42099376›Full record

ReviewStroke (Hoboken, N.J.)2024

Informed Consent in the Stroke Care Continuum.

Michael A Rubin, Rachel Aubert

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Michael A RubinDepartments of Neurology and Neurological Surgery Peter O'Donnel Jr. Brain Institute University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center Dallas TX.
Rachel AubertDepartments of Neurology and Neurological Surgery Peter O'Donnel Jr. Brain Institute University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center Dallas TX.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Acute stroke management has become increasingly complex, incorporating medical, endovascular, and open surgical treatments that are potentially implemented across multiple hospitals for the same patient. Hospitals work in ever-expanding networks to provide cost-effective stroke care, balancing capital and labor costs, expertise, and catchment reach. As these systems and care pathways become more complex and attention is placed on the need to protect privacy, the importance of engaging patients and the community in medical decisions that carry forward from one institute to the next has likewise increased. As each node in the care pathway requires a varying degree of patient input and fulfillment of legal requirements, clinicians would benefit from a fundamental understanding of informed consent and contemporary shared decision-making. While consent is commonly obtained, clinicians may not be aware of how different levels of consent are appropriate depending on the circumstances. In this essay, we explore the origins of informed consent and its relation to contemporary shared decision-making. We will then review the acute stroke care continuum, and argue when simple consent, informed consent, and shared medical decision-making ought to be used to ensure that care is delivered in a matter consistent with ethical practice. This framework is one particular approach to decision-making and consent that we believe is supported by the arguments in this essay. Unless otherwise stated, the medical practice regarding consent discussed herein is applicable to the United States and may vary in other jurisdictions. Furthermore, consent for research is performed under a different paradigm and will not be explored herein.

Indexed as

informed consentmedical ethicsshared decision‐making

Identifiers

PMID42099376
PMCPMC13148442

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.