Informed consent in rhinoplasty: prospective randomized study of risk recall in patients who are given written disclosure of risks versus traditional oral discussion groups.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of providing written information in enhancing patient understanding and retention. DESIGN: A multicentre prospective randomized study was conducted in university-affiliated ambulatory surgical centres. One hundred consecutive patients seen for rhinoplasty consultation were included. Patients were randomly assigned to (1) those receiving traditional oral dialogue of the surgical risks or (2) those receiving an oral discussion and a written pamphlet outlining the risks of the procedure. Fourteen to 18 days after the consultation, each patient was contacted for an assessment of risk recall. RESULTS: Overall risk recall was higher in the group that received written information (2.3 vs 1.3 of 5 risks; p < .008). As well, in the group that received a pamphlet, patients with university and postgraduate levels of education had a better rate of recall (p < .05). Female patients in both groups reported higher risk recall (p < .01). CONCLUSION: Patient risk recall of rhinoplasty is improved with the addition of written information during the informed consent process. As the process of informed consent plays a very decisive role in facial plastic surgery, enhanced postoperative satisfaction may result from the use of supplemental educational materials.
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 | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".