ArticleSurgical neurology international2026
Written risk disclosure in elective neurosurgical consent: A retrospective observational study with descriptive postoperative outcomes.
Article in Surgical neurology international, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Informed consent is a fundamental ethical and legal requirement in neurosurgical practice, particularly given the high risk of postoperative morbidity and medico-legal litigation. Written documentation of material risk disclosure provides objective evidence that valid consent has been obtained. However, real-world data on neurosurgical consent documentation practices remain limited in Malaysia. Methods: A retrospective observational study was conducted at a tertiary referral center, reviewing elective neurosurgical procedures performed in 2022. Electronic medical records and scanned consent forms were analyzed to determine whether material surgical risks were documented during the consent process. Risk documentation was defined as written evidence of disclosed risks recorded on the consent form or in the medical record. Post-operative complications and clinician involvement in consent taking were recorded for descriptive and contextual purposes. Results: A total of 283 elective neurosurgical procedures were included. Documented material risks were identified in 260 cases (91.9%). In 23 (8.1%) cases, no written documentation of risk disclosure was found. Postoperative complications occurred in 54 (19.1%) cases. Complications were more frequent in cases without documented risks (30.4%) compared to those with documentation (18.1%), although this difference was not statistically significant. Registrars most frequently documented clinicians involved in explaining risks. Conclusion: The most elective neurosurgical procedures in this study were supported by written documentation of material risk disclosure. However, a small but clinically relevant proportion lacked such documentation, representing a potential medico-legal vulnerability. Improving consistency and institutional oversight of consent documentation, particularly in registrar-led consent, may further enhance the consistency, quality, and defensibility of neurosurgical practice.
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.