MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053672581 · doi:10.2310/7070.2003.13987

Informed Consent in Otologic Surgery: Prospective Study of Risk Recall by Patients and Impact of Written Summaries of Risk

2003· article· en· W2053672581 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Otolaryngology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRecallInformed consentRandomized controlled trialProspective cohort studyTympanoplastySurgeryNeurosurgeryChecklistIntervention (counseling)Alternative medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate how much patients remember of the risks discussed with them about their otologic surgery and to evaluate whether a simple intervention, the addition of an information handout, improves recall. STUDY DESIGN: A prospective, randomized trial was undertaken in the setting of an academic tertiary care centre. METHODS: Fifty patients undergoing a variety of otologic procedures, including mastoidectomy, tympanoplasty, ossiculoplasty, and stapedectomy, were verbally consented by the operating surgeon with a standard checklist of potential surgical complications and side effects. Two surgeons participated in the study (40 patients and 10 patients). Patients were stratified into two groups: a higher education group and a lower education group. Within each group, patients were randomized to either a control group, consisting of a verbal explanation only, or an intervention group, which added a written handout to the verbal explanation. A follow-up telephone interview was conducted at an average of 20.6 days (range 14-53) to survey for recall of the complications discussed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measure is risk recall. This is analyzed by education level and written sheet intervention. Other parameters examined are patient demographics, time elapsed from when the consent was obtained, and surgeon obtaining the consent. RESULTS: All 50 patients were interviewed in follow-up. Twenty-two patients received the handout (intervention arm), and 28 patients served as the control group. Overall recall, expressed as a percentage of risks explained, was 54% for the entire study group. For those who received the handout, the recall rate was 51%, whereas the rate was actually higher, at 56%, for those who did not receive the handout. This difference was not statistically significant. Of the specific risks discussed, patient recall was consistently high for the complications of facial nerve paralysis, 88%, and for complete hearing loss, at 88%. Other risks, such as dizziness, 31%, and change in taste, 36%, were not as commonly recalled. Receiving the handout made only a significant difference with one complication, facial nerve paralysis. CONCLUSION: The addition of a handout did not significantly alter recall of potential complications of otologic surgery with the exception of facial nerve paralysis.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.092
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.298 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it