GuidelineAnaesthesia2026
Consent for anaesthesia: guidelines from the Association of Anaesthetists.
Guideline in Anaesthesia, 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionGuidelines on consent for anaesthesia were first issued by the Association of Anaesthetists in 1999 and last revised in 2017. These new guidelines respond to the changing ethical, legal and clinical landscape in which anaesthetists practice. Since 2017, the Montgomery judgment has changed medical consent practice. The General Medical Council standards on decision-making and consent and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance on shared decision-making also reinforce the need for high standards of patient advice and counselling.
methodA Working Party, comprising representatives from professional societies, clinical and legal experts and public voice representatives, was established. Relevant new law and professional guidance was identified. A consensus process was not followed as the guidelines are based in law rather than academic opinion.
resultsThe guidelines include a new section on peri-operative medicine and updated advice on the timing, mode, conduct and content of consent discussions. We emphasise the role of healthcare organisations in enabling good practice. We have aligned this guidance with contemporary advice from key organisations. DISCUSSION: These guidelines focus on the law in England and Wales, but we also highlight the key differences in law across the devolved nations of the UK and Republic of Ireland. Although UK law and professional guidance have influence in other English-speaking nations, a limitation of these guidelines is that they cannot be strictly applied outside the jurisdiction of the UK and Ireland. A second limitation is that they do not evaluate the resource implications that accompany them, such as clinical time and resources as well as costs of litigation and complaint.
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.