ReviewJournal of bioethical inquiry2026
A Narrative Review of Surgical Consent in Older Populations: Complexities and Potential Solutions.
Review in Journal of bioethical inquiry, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Maintaining best practice around surgical consent is a core competency, yet in caring for older patients, it can be particularly challenging to meet these standards. Our research question was: In the context of obtaining surgical consent for older people, what are the barriers to, and enablers of, best practice? A literature review was undertaken, using RAMESES (Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses) methodology, and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Eight studies were identified by searching PubMed, Embase, Medline and CINAHL databases, supplemented by reference list searches. Four major themes with subthemes emerged: 1. Complexities: (i) Factors affecting decision-making capacity; (ii) Patient Comprehension; (iii) The doctor-patient relationship and barriers to autonomy; (iv) Ethical issues at stake; 2. Gaps between theory and practice: (i) Lack of proper documentation; (ii) Patient resistance resulting in coercion and restraint; (iii) Proper practice in the emergency context; 3. Reasons for gaps between theory and practice: (i) Lack of knowledge and training: physician misconceptions; (ii) Guesstimates of cognition don't work; (4) Potential solutions: (i) Promoting patient autonomy; (ii) General communication strategies; (iii) Person-centred education step. Notwithstanding a limited yield, this review has identified several pitfalls and practical strategies for promoting human-rights and autonomy; avoiding coercion and restraint in this complex setting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42554779What 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.