Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30294604›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of clinical cases2018

Defensive medicine: It is time to finally slow down an epidemic.

Sandro Vento, Francesca Cainelli, Alfredo Vallone

Open access · diamondAbstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of clinical cases, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
11.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 75 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Modeling European health systems: an ideal chain of services.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Policy Options for Reducing Defensive Medicine Behaviors: A Multi-Method Study.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Collateral Victims of Defensive Medical Practice.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Sandro VentoDepartment of Medicine, Nazarbayev University, Astana 010000, Kazakhstan.
Francesca CainelliDepartment of Medicine, Nazarbayev University, Astana 010000, Kazakhstan.
Alfredo ValloneInfectious Diseases Unit, G. Jazzolino Hospital, Vibo Valentia 89900, Italy.
Astana Medical University · KZJazz Pharmaceuticals (Italy) · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Defensive medicine is widespread and practiced the world over, with serious consequences for patients, doctors, and healthcare costs. Even students and residents are exposed to defensive medicine practices and taught to take malpractice liability into consideration when making clinical decisions. Defensive medicine is generally thought to stem from physicians' perception that they can easily be sued by patients or their relatives who seek compensation for presumed medical errors. However, in our view the growth of defensive medicine should be seen in the context of larger changes in the conception of medicine that have taken place in the last few decades, undermining the patient-physician trust, which has traditionally been the main source of professional satisfaction for physicians. These changes include the following: time directly spent with patients has been overtaken by time devoted to electronic health records and desk work; family doctors have played a progressively less central role; clinical reasoning is being replaced by guidelines and algorithms; the public at large and a number of young physicians tend to believe that medicine is a perfect science rather than an imperfect art, as it continues to be; and modern societies do not tolerate the inevitable morbidity and mortality. To finally reduce the increasing defensive behavior of doctors around the world, the decriminalization of medical errors and the assurance that they can be dealt with in civil courts or by medical organizations in all countries could help but it would not suffice. Physicians and surgeons should be allowed to spend the time they need with their patients and should give clinical reasoning the importance it deserves. The institutions should support the doctors who have experienced adverse patient events, and the media should stop reporting with excessive evidence presumed medical errors and subject physicians to "public trials" before they are eventually judged in court.

Indexed as

Adverse eventClinical reasoningDefensive medicineDoctor-patient relationshipHealthcare costMedical educationMedical error

Identifiers

PMID30294604
PMCPMC6163143
OpenAlexW2892471995

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.