Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42709947›Full record

ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2026

When 'No Surgery' Is Chosen: A Five-Domain Framework for Evaluating Ethical Consent in Non-Operative Hip Fracture Care.

Liang Xu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Liang XuDepartment of Orthopedic, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China.ORCID 0009-0000-9310-8683

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHip fracture in frail older adults is commonly managed surgically, but non-operative management may be appropriate for selected patients with extreme frailty, limited life expectancy, severe cognitive impairment, multimorbidity or limited expected benefit from surgery. However, when 'no surgery' is chosen, documentation of consent or refusal may complete a procedural requirement without ensuring ethically sufficient decision-making.

methodsA structured, literature-informed conceptual ethical analysis was conducted using PubMed and Scopus searches, citation tracking and synthesis guided by the four principles of biomedical ethics.

resultsFour ethical gaps are identified: non-operative burdens are often naturalised, 'conservative treatment' may be mistaken for comfort care, family signatures may not fully represent patient values, and refusal of surgery does not end clinical responsibility. These recurring concerns are organised into a five-domain framework: Burden, Goal, Voice, Balance and Commitment.

conclusionsNon-operative hip fracture care should move from procedural consent to ethical consent. The proposed framework may support balanced risk communication, goal clarification, patient-centred decision making and continued care planning when 'no surgery' is chosen.

Indexed as

Decision MakingHip FracturesInformed ConsentAgedFrail ElderlyHumansethical decision makingfrail older adultship fractureinformed consentnon‐operative management

Identifiers

PMID42709947
PMCPMC13552944

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.