Turban's review is pretty good. He gives a pretty fair assessment of all the research, and doesn't over-interpret or excuse much. I checked what looked like the best study (Green et al. 2021--good sample size and methodology) and was disappointed to find that their take-home conclusion was compromised by improper use of statistics (use of a categorical variable to measure something that is continuous in reality and has a strong impact on the outcome). But honestly, I don't fault Turban for not noticing.

(Aside: this is not some irrelevant statistical quibble. There is a very good chance that Green's conclusions about their data are wrong. And, therefore, Turban's summary of what their data shows is wrong. It's just that I recognize the sad reality that most people plug numbers into a black box without really thinking about what the box assumes, instead of enthusiastically embracing how mathematics can reveal the structure of reality--and the former is "accepted practice" in many fields. Alas! But it's not fair to blame Turban for this.)

Ashley's review, in contrast, has some problems. The main problems conceptually are that, as she admits, the evidence is limited, but her conclusions are not correspondingly tentative; and that she seemingly forgets, when she writes her conclusions, about a paper (showing a strong effect of "core" evaluation) that she spends two paragraphs arguing against! But it's declared to be a "narrative review", which implies giving a perspective rather than being a completely dispassionate arbiter of truth, so maybe that's forgivable? Edit: I found a paper cited by Ashley that I thought I'd checked but had overlooked that does have low-quality evidence about informed consent regret rates, so I retract my this-is-unprofessional characterization [now omitted, since I was wrong]; instead, it's consistent with the "narrative" approach of telling a story without worrying much about whether one is actually correct.

So I'm rather unimpressed with Ashley as an authoritative source (at least when combined with the other three co-authors; maybe she's better on her own?). This isn't a good example of what to do when trying to understand a phenomenon. "Narrative" just isn't a good way to approach objectively answerable questions.