Human Voice vs AI-Cloned Voice Audio Added to Written Consent Before Ureteroscopy or Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery (AUDIO-CONSENT) (AUDIO-CONSENT)

October 3, 2026 updated by: Ahmet Emre YILDIZ, Aydin Adnan Menderes University

Effect of Adding a Urologist's Recorded Voice or an AI Clone of the Same Voice to Written Informed Consent on Knowledge, Anxiety, and Satisfaction in Patients Scheduled for Ureteroscopy or Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery: A Multicenter, Three-Arm Randomized Controlled Trial

Before kidney stone surgery with a flexible or semirigid ureteroscope, patients must read and sign a written consent form, but many patients find these forms long and hard to understand. This study tests whether listening to an audio recording of the same consent form, in addition to the usual written form and the surgeon's explanation, helps patients understand the operation better. It also asks whether it matters if the recording is read by a real urologist or produced by artificial intelligence (AI) from a clone of that same urologist's voice.

Adults scheduled for their first ureteroscopy or retrograde intrarenal surgery at three hospitals in Turkey will be randomly assigned to one of three groups: (A) standard written consent only, (B) standard consent plus an audio recording read by a urologist, or (C) standard consent plus the same text produced by an AI-cloned version of the same urologist's voice. All three groups receive exactly the same information, word for word; only the way it is delivered differs. Patients in group C are told that the voice was produced by AI.

The main outcome is a 10-question knowledge test on the content of the consent form, taken immediately after the consent process. Anxiety (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory) and satisfaction are also measured on the same day. No forms are completed on the day of surgery.

Study Overview

Status

Recruiting

Conditions

Intervention / Treatment

Detailed Description

Design: multicenter, prospective, parallel-group, three-arm (1:1:1) randomized controlled trial with outcome-assessor and analyst blinding.

Stimuli: The same unified URS/RIRS consent text is used in all arms. Arm B uses a single studio recording read by one urologist (identical at all centers; not the patients' own surgeon). Arm C uses a voice clone of the same urologist generated with Resemble.ai from a separate reference recording (≥5 min, different text), rendered once and frozen (no live AI calls). Both recordings were loudness-matched (-24.0 LUFS), mono, 48 kHz, AAC; duration 716.8 s vs 708.4 s (1.2% difference). Recordings are presented after the standard written consent process and physician explanation are completed, on a tablet with headphones; patients may replay them (replay count recorded) and may ask the physician questions in every arm. Arms B and C are introduced with structurally parallel sentences ("read by a urologist" vs "generated with AI from a urologist's voice").

Randomization: computer-generated, stratified by center (3) and education level (middle school or less / high school or higher), 6 strata, permuted blocks of varying size (block sizes not disclosed to site staff); allocation concealment by sequentially numbered, sealed, opaque envelopes; the person opening envelopes differs from the outcome scorer. Knowledge tests are scored by an assessor blinded to arm; the dataset is transferred to the statistician with masked arm labels.

Hypotheses (fixed-sequence testing, two-sided α=0.05): H1 knowledge score arm C > arm A; H2 arm B > arm A (tested only if H1 is significant); H3 arm C vs arm B - descriptive only, adjusted mean difference with 95% CI compared against a pre-specified reference range of ±1.0 point; no equivalence or non-inferiority claim will be made.

Sample size: to detect a 1.0-point difference (SD 2.0, d=0.50) with 85% power, 72 analyzable patients per arm; 80 per arm (240 total) allowing 10% loss. A blinded sample-size re-estimation (pooled SD, arm labels not revealed) is performed once after 120 patients; if pooled SD >2.3 the sample size is recalculated with the same effect, α and power.

Analysis: ANCOVA for post-consent knowledge score with arm, education, procedure, age and center; secondary ANCOVA for post-consent STAI-S (STAI-S2) adjusted for pre-consent STAI-S (STAI-S1), STAI-T, sex, education, procedure and center. Pre-specified supportive analysis: arm A vs pooled audio arms (B+C). Exploratory: education × arm interaction; physician (consenting doctor) variance. Knowledge-test psychometrics (KR-20, item difficulty, discrimination) are reported from trial data. Reporting follows CONSORT.

Analysis set: the primary analysis is performed in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population - all randomized patients analyzed in their allocated arm who have a measured primary outcome. If missing primary outcome data exceed 5%, a sensitivity analysis using multiple imputation is performed; a per-protocol analysis is also reported as sensitivity analysis.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Estimated)

240

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Contact

Study Locations

    • Aydın
      • Aydin, Aydın, Turkey (Türkiye)
        • Recruiting
        • Aydin Adnan Menderes University, Department of Urology
        • Principal Investigator:
          • Cagatay Ozsoy, MD
      • Aydin, Aydın, Turkey (Türkiye)
        • Recruiting
        • Aydin City Hospital, Department of Urology
        • Principal Investigator:
          • Ahmet Emre Yildiz, MD
    • Kütahya
      • Kütahya, Kütahya, Turkey (Türkiye)
        • Recruiting
        • Kutahya Health Sciences University, Department of Urology
        • Principal Investigator:
          • Seref Coser, MD

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

18 years and older (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Age 18 years or older
  • Scheduled for elective ureteroscopy (URS) or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS)
  • Able to read, understand and communicate verbally in Turkish
  • Provides written informed consent to participate in the study

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Hearing or visual impairment preventing use of the study materials
  • Confusion, dementia, psychosis or any other condition affecting capacity to consent
  • Emergency surgery
  • Previous URS or RIRS
  • Current psychiatric treatment or use of anxiolytics
  • Health-care professional

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Health Services Research
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: Single

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Active Comparator: A: Written consent (standard care)

Standard care: the unified written consent form plus the physician's usual verbal explanation. No audio recording.

The institution's unified written informed consent form for ureteroscopy and retrograde intrarenal surgery, read and signed by the patient, together with the physician's usual verbal explanation. Delivered identically in all three arms.

Experimental: B: Written consent + urologist-read audio

Standard care plus an audio recording of the entire consent text read by a urologist (the same recording at all centers), presented after the standard consent process.

The institution's unified written informed consent form for ureteroscopy and retrograde intrarenal surgery, read and signed by the patient, together with the physician's usual verbal explanation. Delivered identically in all three arms.

An approximately 12-minute audio recording of the complete consent text, read word for word by one urologist (the same recording at all centers; not the patient's own surgeon). Presented after the standard written consent and physician explanation, on a tablet with headphones in the patient's room without companions; the patient may replay it and the number of replays is recorded. Loudness-normalized to -24 LUFS. Introduced to the patient as "a recording of the entire consent form read by a urologist".

Experimental: C: Written consent + AI-cloned voice audio

Standard care plus an audio recording of the same text generated with AI from a voice clone of the same urologist, presented after the standard consent process; patients are told that the voice was generated with AI.

The institution's unified written informed consent form for ureteroscopy and retrograde intrarenal surgery, read and signed by the patient, together with the physician's usual verbal explanation. Delivered identically in all three arms.

The same consent text, generated once with Resemble.ai from a voice clone of the same urologist (reference sample: a separate recording of at least 5 minutes of a different text), frozen before enrollment with no live AI calls. Duration approximately 12 minutes; loudness-matched (-24 LUFS), codec and delivery identical to the human-voice recording, presented after the standard written consent and physician explanation, on a tablet with headphones; replay allowed and counted. Patients are informed that the voice was generated with AI from a urologist's voice.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Post-consent knowledge score
Time Frame: Day of consent, immediately after completion of the consent process (before surgery)

Score on a 10-item multiple-choice test derived from the consent text (range 0-10; higher scores indicate better knowledge of the procedure, its risks, alternatives and patient responsibilities). Each item is mapped to a specific paragraph of the consent form. Analyzed as a continuous variable.

Day of consent, immediately after completion of the consent process (before surgery)

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Post-consent state anxiety (STAI-S)
Time Frame: Day of consent, immediately after the consent process

State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, State form (Turkish version, Öner & Le Compte), range 20-80; higher scores indicate greater anxiety. Measured immediately after the consent process and analyzed adjusted for the pre-consent STAI-S score (measured immediately before the consent process) and STAI-T.

Day of consent, immediately after the consent process
Patient satisfaction and perceived clarity
Time Frame: Day of consent, immediately after the consent process

Three study-specific 5-point items (perceived clarity of the information, adequacy of the information for decision-making, overall satisfaction with the consent process); each scored 1-5, higher scores indicate better outcomes. Reported item by item; total score (3-15) secondary. Not validated.

Day of consent, immediately after the consent process
Perceived naturalness and usefulness of the audio recording (arms B and C)
Time Frame: Day of consent, immediately after the consent process

Two study-specific 5-point items: naturalness of the voice (1 = not at all natural to 5 = completely natural) and usefulness of receiving the information as audio (1 = not at all to 5 = very much). Higher scores indicate greater perceived naturalness/usefulness. Asked in both audio arms.

Day of consent, immediately after the consent process
Acceptability of the AI-generated voice (arm C)
Time Frame: Day of consent, immediately after the consent process

Single study-specific 5-point item: "Did it bother you that the voice was generated by artificial intelligence?" (1 = not at all to 5 = very much; higher scores indicate lower acceptability). Administered on a separate sheet after the naturalness items have been collected.

Day of consent, immediately after the consent process
Number of audio replays (arms B and C)
Time Frame: Day of consent (during the consent session)

Number of times the patient chose to replay the audio recording.

Day of consent (during the consent session)
Self-reported reading of the written consent form
Time Frame: Day of consent, immediately after the consent process

Single item with four categories: read all of it / read most of it / skimmed it / did not read it.

Day of consent, immediately after the consent process
Withdrawal from or postponement of the planned procedure
Time Frame: From the consent process to the scheduled date of surgery (up to 7 days)

Number and percentage of patients who decline or postpone the planned surgery after the consent process, and of patients who stop the audio recording before completion. Reported descriptively by arm; not interpreted as an adverse outcome.

From the consent process to the scheduled date of surgery (up to 7 days)

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Collaborators

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Ahmet Emre Yildiz, MD, Aydin City Hospital

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

September 28, 2026

Primary Completion (Estimated)

March 1, 2027

Study Completion (Estimated)

April 1, 2027

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

September 30, 2026

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

September 30, 2026

First Posted (Actual)

October 5, 2026

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

October 7, 2026

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

October 3, 2026

Last Verified

October 1, 2026

More Information

Terms related to this study

Other Study ID Numbers

  • AUDIOCONSENT-URS-2026
  • 2026/364 (Other Identifier: Aydin Adnan Menderes University Non-Interventional Clinical Research Ethics Committee (approved 17 Sep 2026))

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

YES

IPD Plan Description

Fully anonymized individual participant data underlying the results reported in publications (knowledge test item scores, STAI scores, questionnaire responses and baseline covariates), together with the data dictionary. Direct and indirect identifiers will be removed or aggregated before sharing.

IPD Sharing Time Frame

Beginning 6 months after publication of the primary results.

IPD Sharing Access Criteria

Researchers who submit a methodologically sound proposal to the principal investigator. Data are shared after approval of the proposal, approval by the responsible ethics committee where required, and signing of a data-sharing agreement, in accordance with Turkish personal data protection law (KVKK).

IPD Sharing Supporting Information Type

  • STUDY_PROTOCOL
  • SAP
  • ICF

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.