ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2026
Count Backwards From Ten: Epistemic Injustice and the Patient as Expert in the Operating Theatre.
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.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
rationaleThe figure of the 'patient as expert' has reshaped how medicine understands the knowing subject, yet its influence stops at the door of the operating theatre. Perioperative medicine, which comprises the preoperative clinic, the anaesthetic room and the surgical table, is at once the most instrument-saturated arena in clinical practice and the one in which the patient is most completely translated into a body and a stream of numbers before being rendered, by design, unconscious and mute. AIMS AND
objectivesTo examine the operating theatre as the limit case of the patient-as-expert debate; to distinguish the physiological silencing of anaesthesia, which is a clinical necessity rather than an injustice, from the epistemic injustice that surrounds it; and to translate this analysis into a concrete, testable programme for epistemic justice in perioperative care.
methodA conceptual and philosophical analysis, drawing on Fricker's account of testimonial and hermeneutical injustice, Dotson's analysis of silencing, the phenomenology of illness developed by Toombs, Leder, Carel and Svenaeus, and Foucault's account of the medical gaze, together with the person-centred care, capability and philosophical-health literatures.
resultsWe show how the theatre's gaze and its production pressures conspire to make the patient's testimony hard to hear; that general anaesthesia abolishes, for a time, the lived body from which patient knowledge is drawn, so raising rather than lowering the stakes of gathering that knowledge before the silence and crediting it after; that the several mechanisms at work, testimonial and hermeneutical injustice, structural silencing, production pressure and the authority of the anaesthetic record, must be told apart; and that accidental awareness is the emblem of the perioperative economy of credibility. Throughout, the patient is treated not only as a source of clinically useful information but as an interpreting and valuing person whose standing is what is finally at stake.
conclusionThe operating theatre is the sharpest and most instructive test case for taking the patient seriously as a knower. We propose a concrete, testable programme for epistemic justice in perioperative care, continuous with the specialty's existing safety culture.
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.