ArticleDiagnostic pathology2019
Diagnostic errors in fatal medical malpractice cases in Shanghai, China: 1990-2015.
Article in Diagnostic pathology, 2019. 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.
- Analysis of the causes of improper medical decision-making in medical damage liability disputes in China: a text mining approach.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Factors influencing medical disputes among village doctors from seven provinces in China: a cross-sectional study.Human resources for health · 2025Article
- Diagnostic consistency between admission and discharge of pediatric cases in a tertiary teaching hospital in China.BMC pediatrics · 2023Article
- Artificial Intelligence Technology-Based Medical Information Processing and Emergency First Aid Nursing Management.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2022Article
- Retrospective analysis of medical malpractice claims in tertiary hospitals of China: the view from patient safety.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Reasons for and Facilitating Factors of Medical Malpractice Complaints. What Can Be Done to Prevent Them?Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMedical disputes remain unabated in China. Previous studies have shown the changes of diagnostic discrepancy over time in developed countries, but diagnostic discrepancy remains understudied in China, especially in the setting of medical disputes. We sought to describe the year-based changes of diagnostic discrepancies in medical disputes, and to identify factors associated with classes of diagnostic discrepancy.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of all medically disputed cases from 1990 through 2015 in Shanghai, China, with use of necropsy as the gold standard for diagnosis. Cases were grouped based on national legislative eras. Diagnostic discrepancy was classified as major errors (class I and II), minor errors (class III and IV), no discrepancy (class V) and undetermined (class VI) based on discrepancy severity.
resultsThere were 482 medical disputes. Cases were predominantly males (male: female = 1.6:1) and concentrated in patients less than 10 years old or between 50 and 70 years. Major and minor discrepancy accounted for 51.7 and 34.8%, respectively. Fifty-five cases (11.2%) were non-discrepant (Class V). The dispute rate remained high before the first round of legislation (mean 0.31 per 1 million patients) but declined dramatically afterwards (R
conclusionsThe rate of fatal medical disputes and diagnostic discrepancy declined after stepwise legislations in China. Respiratory diseases, neoplasm carrier and hypertension could be independent predictors for assessing diagnostic errors.
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.