Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23903929›Full record

ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract2013

Uncovering malpractice in appendectomies: a review of 234 cases.

Amad J Choudhry, Seema P Anandalwar, Asad J Choudhry, Peter F Svider, Joseph O Oliver, Jean Anderson Eloy, Ravi J Chokshi

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. [Trust and reliability in surgery].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2017
    Article
  5. Medical Malpractice in Bariatric Surgery: a Review of 140 Medicolegal Claims.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2017
    Article
  6. The research conundrum of acute appendicitis.The British journal of surgery · 2015
    Review
  7. Court decisions on medical malpractice.International journal of legal medicine · 2014
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Amad J ChoudhryDepartment of Surgery, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey-New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ, USA.
Seema P Anandalwar
Asad J Choudhry
Peter F Svider
Joseph O Oliver
Jean Anderson Eloy
Ravi J Chokshi

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGeneral surgery is a "high-risk specialty" with respect to medical malpractice rates, and appendicitis is one of the most common diagnoses encountered by practitioners. Our objectives were to detail issues affecting malpractice litigation regarding appendicitis and appendectomies, including outcomes, awards, alleged causes of malpractice, and other factors instrumental in determining legal responsibility and increasing patient safety. STUDY

designPublically available federal and state court records were examined for pertinent jury verdict and settlement reports. Information from 234 pertinent cases was collected, including alleged causes of malpractice and outcomes.

resultsOf the 234 cases included in this study, the most common factor noted was an alleged delay in diagnosis (67.1%), followed by intraoperative negligence (16.2%). Alleged deficits in informed consent, although only specifically cited as a cause of malpractice in 1.3% of cases, were found to be an important aspect of many cases. In total, 59.8% of cases were ruled in favor of the physician, 23.7% in favor of the plaintiff, and 5.5% reached a settlement. The average plaintiff award was US $794,152, and the average settlement award was US $1,434,286.

conclusionAn important strategy to decrease liability in a physician's practice is prompt evaluation of an appendicitis patient. An integral part of this is efficient communication between physicians practicing a wide variety of specialties, especially including practitioners in emergency medicine and general surgery. Additionally, completing a thorough informed consent explaining all aspects of the procedure including the factors we outline will not only increase patient awareness of potential risks but also protect the physician in the face of litigation.

Indexed as

AppendectomyHumansMalpractice

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.