BecherRD, WykBV, Leo-SummersL, et al.The Incidence and Cumulative Risk of Major Surgery in Older Persons in the United States. Ann Surg, 2021; 277(1):87–92; doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000005077
2.
RichardsonJD, CocanourCS, KernJA, et al.Perioperative risk assessment in elderly and high-risk patients1 1No competing interests declared. J Am Coll Surg, 2004; 199(1):133–146; doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2004.02.023
3.
ZhangY, MaL, WangT, et al.Protocol for evaluation of perioperative risk in patients aged over 75 years: Aged Patient Perioperative Longitudinal Evaluation–Multidisciplinary Trial (APPLE-MDT study). BMC Geriatr, 2021; 21(1):14; doi: 10.1186/s12877-020-01956-3
4.
LeclercqWKG, KeulersBJ, ScheltingaMRM, et al.A review of surgical informed consent: Past, present, and future. a quest to help patients make better decisions. World J Surg, 2010; 34(7):1406–1415; doi: 10.1007/s00268-010-0542-0
5.
LidzCW. The therapeutic misconception and our models of competency and informed consent. Behav Sci Law, 2006; 24(4):535–546; doi: 10.1002/bsl.700
6.
FalagasME, KorbilaIP, GiannopoulouKP, et al.Informed consent: How much and what do patients understand? Am J Surg, 2009; 198(3):420–435; doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2009.02.010
7.
UbbinkDT, KnopsAM, MolenaarS, et al.Design and development of a decision aid to enhance shared decision making by patients with an asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysm. Patient Prefer Adherence, 2008; 2:315–322.
8.
KnopsAM, LegemateDA, GoossensA, et al.Decision aids for patients facing a surgical treatment decision: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg, 2013; 257(5):860–866; doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182864fd6
9.
SepuchaK, AtlasSJ, ChangY, et al.Patient decision aids improve decision quality and patient experience and reduce surgical rates in routine orthopaedic care: A Prospective Cohort Study. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2017; 99(15):1253–1260; doi: 10.2106/JBJS.16.01045
10.
StaceyD, LégaréF, LewisK, et al.Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2017; 4(4):CD001431; doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub5
11.
Jibaja-WeissML, VolkRJ, GranchiTS, et al.Entertainment education for breast cancer surgery decisions: A randomized trial among patients with low health literacy. Patient Educ Couns, 2011; 84(1):41–48; doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2010.06.009
12.
ArterburnDE, WestbrookEO, BogartTA, et al.Randomized trial of a video-based patient decision aid for bariatric surgery. Obesity (Silver Spring), 2011; 19(8):1669–1675; doi: 10.1038/oby.2011.65
BilimoriaKY, LiuY, ParuchJL, et al.Development and evaluation of the universal ACS NSQIP surgical risk calculator: A decision aid and informed consent tool for patients and surgeons. J Am Coll Surg, 2013; 217(5):833–842.e3; doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2013.07.385
16.
CohenME, LiuY, KoCY, et al.An Examination of American College of Surgeons NSQIP surgical risk calculator accuracy. J Am Coll Surg, 2017; 224(5):787–795.e1; doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2016.12.057
17.
BurgessJR, SmithB, BrittR, et al.Predicting postoperative complications for acute care surgery patients using the ACS NSQIP surgical risk calculator. Am Surg, 2017; 83(7):733–738; doi: 10.1177/000313481708300730
18.
YapMKC, AngKF, Gonzales-PorciunculaLA, et al.Validation of the American College of Surgeons Risk Calculator for preoperative risk stratification. Heart Asia, 2018; 10(2):e010993; doi: 10.1136/heartasia-2017-010993
19.
KruserJM, NaboznyMJ, SteffensNM, et al.“Best Case/Worst Case”: Qualitative evaluation of a novel communication tool for difficult in-the-moment surgical decisions. J Am Geriatr Soc, 2015; 63(9):1805–1811; doi: 10.1111/jgs.13615
20.
TaylorLJ, NaboznyMJ, SteffensNM, et al.A framework to improve surgeon communication in high-stakes surgical decisions: Best case/worst case. JAMA Surg, 2017; 152(6):531–538; doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2016.5674
21.
WongML, NicosiaFM, SmithAK, et al.“You have to be sure that the patient has the full picture”: Adaptation of the Best Case/Worst Case communication tool for geriatric oncology. J Geriatr Oncol, 2022; 13(5):606–613; doi: 10.1016/j.jgo.2022.01.014
