ArticleInvestigative and clinical urology2017
Analysis of closed medical litigation in urology.
Article in Investigative and clinical urology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The sensory penis: A comprehensive immunohistological and ontogenetic exploration of human penile innervation.Andrology · 2026Article
- Medical malpractice related to urology: an analysis of court decisions in Turkey.International urology and nephrology · 2025Article
- Men's Health & Sexual Medicine and the Litigious Patient: A Review of Malpractice Cases.Urology research & practice · 2025Article
- Medical malpractice related to dialysis and vascular access: An analysis of lawsuit judgements in South Korea.PloS one · 2021Article
- Medicolegal implications from litigations involving necrotizing fasciitis.Annals of surgical treatment and research · 2020Article
- Analysis of Judicial Precedents Cases Regarding Skin Cancer from 1997 to 2017 in Republic of Korea.Annals of dermatology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe objective of this study was to provide a descriptive understanding of the characteristics of malpractice litigation related to urology by examining court cases. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 6,074 court cases related to medical malpractice litigation filed between 2005 and 2010 were received from the Lower Courts, the Appellate Courts, and the Supreme Court of Korea. Of the received cases, 34 urology-related civil proceedings were analyzed. The following information was compiled and investigated from the cases: background, age and sex of patient, categorization of the defendant, opinion of the court, amount claimed and awarded in damages, type of medical treatment involved, and negative effects resulting from the medical accident.
resultsThe average amount in damages paid out to plaintiffs in this research was 27,186,504±32,371,008 Korean won (KRW) (range, 1,000,000-100,000,000 KRW). A total of 9 of the 34 analyzed cases (26.5%) ruled in favor of the plaintiff, with all 9 cases involving a surgery. An analysis of the surgery sites further revealed that the penis was the most frequently litigated over site of surgery, making up 14 of the 35 sites (40.0%).
conclusionsInformation regarding urology malpractice lawsuits should be made available to help prevent further disputes and litigation. Continuous efforts must be expended in the prevention of accidents and disputes, alongside research into urology-related cases beyond 2010. Extensive cause analysis and recurrence prevention methods must also be researched to enhance overall patient safety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.