The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The reality of informed consent: empirical studies on patient comprehension—systematic review
Open accessAbstract
Background: Informed consent is a basic concept of contemporary, autonomy-based medical practice and facilitates a shared decision-making model for relations between physicians and patients. Thus, the extent to which patients can comprehend the consent they grant is essential to the ethical viability of medicine as it is pursued today. However, research on patients’ comprehension of an informed consent’s basic components shows that their level of understanding is limited. Methods: Systemic searches of the PubMed and Web of Science databases were performed to identify the literature on informed consent, specifically patients’ comprehension of specific informed consent components. Results: In total, 14 relevant articles were retrieved. In most studies, few clinical trial participants correctly responded to items that examined their awareness of what they consented to. Participants demonstrated the highest level of understanding (over 50%) regarding voluntary participation, blinding (excluding knowledge about investigators’ blinding), and freedom to withdraw at any time. Only a small minority of patients demonstrated comprehension of placebo concepts, randomisation, safety issues, risks, and side effects. Conclusions: We found that participants’ comprehension of fundamental informed consent components was low, which is worrisome because this lack of understanding undermines an ethical pillar of contemporary clinical trial practice and questions the viability of patients’ full and genuine involvement in a shared medical decision-making process.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100 · Cited by 28,164
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gotzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2700 · Cited by 17,648
Informed consent: how much and what do patients understand?
Falagas, M. E., Korbila, I. P., Giannopoulou, K. P., Kondilis, B. K., & Peppas, G. (2009) · The American Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2009.02.010 · Cited by 428
Tam, N. T., Huy, N. T., Thoa, L. T. B., Long, N. P., Trang, N. T. H., Hirayama, K., & Karbwang, J. (2015) · Bulletin of the World Health Organization · doi:10.2471/blt.14.141390 · Cited by 315
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., & Higgins, J. P. T. (2018) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019703 · Cited by 278
How to obtain informed consent for research
Manti, S., & Licari, A. (2018) · Breathe · doi:10.1183/20734735.001918 · Cited by 198
Problems in comprehension of informed consent in rural and peri-urban Mali, West Africa
Krosin, M. T., Klitzman, R., Levin, B., Cheng, J., & Ranney, M. L. (2006) · Clinical Trials · doi:10.1191/1740774506cn150oa · Cited by 111
Does written informed consent adequately inform surgical patients? A cross sectional study
Agozzino, E., Borrelli, S., Cancellieri, M., Carfora, F. M., Lorenzo, T. D., & Attena, F. (2019) · BMC Medical Ethics · doi:10.1186/s12910-018-0340-z · Cited by 101
Can shared decision-making reduce medical malpractice litigation? A systematic review
Durand, M., Moulton, B. W., Cockle, E., Mann, M. K., & Elwyn, G. J. (2015) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-015-0823-2 · Cited by 91
Idänpään-Heikkilä, J. E. (1994) · Annals of Medicine · doi:10.3109/07853899409147334 · Cited by 80
Cited by
Current applications and challenges in large language models for patient care: a systematic review
Busch, F., Hoffmann, L., Rueger, C., van Dijk, E. H., Kader, R., Ortiz-Prado, E., Makowski, M. R., Saba, L., Hadamitzky, M., Kather, J. N., et al. (2025) · Communications Medicine · doi:10.1038/s43856-024-00717-2 · Cited by 358
Metadata
- Authors
- Pietrzykowski, T., & Smilowska, K.
- Venue
- Trials
- Published
- 2021-01-14
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 57-57
- ISSN
- 1745-6215 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3124618094
- Cited by
- 259
- References
- 19
- FWCI
- 7.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The reality of informed consent: empirical studies on patient comprehension—systematic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/s13063-020-04969-w
- The paper
- Pietrzykowski, T., & Smilowska, K. (2021). The reality of informed consent: empirical studies on patient comprehension—systematic review. Trials. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-04969-w
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.