ArticleJournal of Korean medical science2018
Medical Litigations Associated with Cataract Surgery in Korea.
Article in Journal of Korean medical science, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- From Routine to Risk: Medical Liability and the Legal Implications of Cataract Surgery in the Age of Trivialization.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Medicolegal implications from litigations involving necrotizing fasciitis.Annals of surgical treatment and research · 2020Article
- Dispute cases related to pain management in Korea: analysis of Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency data.Anesthesia and pain medicine · 2020Article
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
backgroundTo analyze the results of court rulings about medical litigations related to cataract surgery in Korea.
methodsWe collected 50 anonymized judgements regarding cataract surgery between 2000 and 2016 and analyzed the reasons for the medical litigations, the court rulings, the reasons for compensation, and the amount claimed and finally awarded.
resultsForty-eight litigations (96%) resulted from errors in treatment, and the reasons were as follows: endophthalmitis, dissatisfaction of visual outcome or ocular discomfort, bullous keratopathy or corneal opacity, retinal detachment, glaucoma or vitreous hemorrhage due to the progression of an underlying diabetic retinopathy, and others in order. Two litigations (4%) arose due to errors in diagnosis. Among the 50 final cases, 21 litigations (42%) were decided in favor of the plaintiff, and 29 litigations (58%) were decided against the plaintiff and dismissed. Ten cases awarded damages to the plaintiffs because of a violation of duty of care, and 11 cases awarded damages due to a violation of informed consent. When comparing cases with errors in diagnosis to cases with errors in treatment, there was no significant difference in the relative risk of a defendant's verdict (
conclusionNearly half of the cases were decided in favor of the plaintiff due to the violation of informed consent. This study's results will be helpful in understanding the results of medical litigations regarding cataract surgery and reducing future lawsuits.
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.