Informed consent in otologic surgery: prospective randomized study comparing risk recall with an illustrated handout and a nonillustrated handout.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Following consent, do pictures in a handout improve patients' recall of otologic surgical risks? STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, randomized trial in a tertiary care centre. METHODS: Patients undergoing otologic surgery were consented with a standardized checklist of risks by two surgeons. They were randomized (stratified by educational level) to receive either a pure text or a text and pictures handout outlining the risks of surgery. A telephone interview tested recall at a mean of 19 days. Twenty-six patients were resampled at 1 year. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Recall was analyzed with respect to type of handout, age, sex, and level of education. A subset of 31 patients was analyzed for the effects of which surgeon consented, previous otologic surgery, and actually reading the handout. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients completed the study. The overall risk recall was 43%, with 45% in the pictorial group and 42% in the pure text group (p = .84). The illustrated handout did not improve the recall of any individual surgical risk either. Higher education improved risk recall from 36 to 54% (p = .009). Age, consenting surgeon, previous otologic surgery, and even reading the handout did not improve risk recall. A subgroup of 26 patients was followed up 1 year later, and their recall fell from 41 to 35%. The illustrated handout did not improve long-term recall (p = .674). CONCLUSION: Pictorial cues do not improve recall of surgical risks, but education level does.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".