ArticleThe western journal of emergency medicine2018
Anaphylaxis-related Malpractice Lawsuits.
Article in The western journal of emergency medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Telemedicine-guided management of iodinated contrast media-associated anaphylaxis: A case report.Radiology case reports · 2026Article
- Regarding emergency medical services activation after epinephrine for anaphylaxis.The World Allergy Organization journal · 2026Article
- Strategies to Increase Equitable Access to Penicillin Allergy Delabeling Interactions: A Qualitative Study.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Frontline nursing staff's perceptions of intravenous medication administration: the first step toward safer infusion processes-a qualitative study.BMJ open quality · 2024Article
- Article
- International recommendations on epinephrine auto-injector doses often differ from standard weight-based guidance: a review and clinical proposals.Allergy, asthma, and clinical immunology : official journal of the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2022Review
- Emergency treatment of anaphylaxis: concise clinical guidance.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2022Article
- Intranasal epinephrine effects on epinephrine pharmacokinetics and heart rate in a nasal congestion canine model.Respiratory research · 2020Article
- Intranasal epinephrine in dogs: Pharmacokinetic and heart rate effects.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2020Article
- Medical malpractice related to drug-induced anaphylaxis: An analysis of lawsuit judgments in South Korea.Medicine · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAnaphylaxis continues to cause significant morbidity and mortality. Healthcare providers struggle to promptly recognize and appropriately treat anaphylaxis patients. The goal of this study was to characterize anaphylaxis-related malpractice lawsuits.
methodsWe collected jury verdicts, settlements, and court opinions regarding alleged medical malpractice involving anaphylaxis from May 2011 through May 2016 from an online legal database (Thomson Reuters Westlaw). Data were abstracted onto a standardized data form.
resultsWe identified 30 anaphylaxis-related malpractice lawsuits. In 80% of cases, the trigger was iatrogenic (40% intravenous [IV] contrast, 33% medications, 7% latex). Sixteen (53%) cases resulted in death, 7 (23%) in permanent cardiac and/or neurologic damage, and 7 (23%) in less severe outcomes. Fourteen (47%) of the lawsuits were related to exposure to a known trigger. Delayed recognition or treatment was cited in 12 (40%) cases and inappropriate IV epinephrine dosing was reported in 5 (17%) cases. Defendants were most commonly physicians (n=15, 50%) and nurses (n=5, 17%). The most common physician specialties named were radiology and primary care (n=3, 10% each), followed by emergency medicine, anesthesiology, and cardiology (n=2, 7% each). Among the 30 cases, 14 (47%) favored the defendant, 8 (37%) resulted in findings of negligence, 3 (10%) cases settled, and 5 (17%) had an unknown legal outcome.
conclusionAdditional anaphylaxis education, provision of epinephrine autoinjectors or other alternatives to reduce dosing errors, and stronger safeguards to prevent administration of known allergens would all likely reduce anaphylaxis-related patient morbidity and mortality and providers' legal vulnerability to anaphylaxis-related 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.