ArticleMedicine2019
Medical malpractice related to drug-induced anaphylaxis: An analysis of lawsuit judgments in South Korea.
Article in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Article
- Successful desensitization to atezolizumab-induced near-fatal anaphylaxis in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: A case report and literature review.Asia Pacific allergy · 2024Article
- Is physical restraint unethical and illegal?: a qualitative analysis of Korean written judgments.BMC nursing · 2024Article
- Development and Validation of a Deep Learning Model for Detection of Allergic Reactions Using Safety Event Reports Across Hospitals.JAMA network open · 2020Article
- Medicolegal implications from litigations involving necrotizing fasciitis.Annals of surgical treatment and research · 2020Article
- Medicolegal Consideration to Prevent Medical Malpractice Regarding Opioid Administration: An Analysis of Judicial Opinion in South Korea.Journal of pain research · 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
7 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Drug-induced anaphylaxis (DIA) is a highly paradoxical disorder involving a fatal response to medicines prescribed for therapeutic purposes. This study aimed to improve the awareness on DIA and to prevent errors through an analysis of lawsuit judgments.Sentenced judgments involving DIA from 1998 to 2017 using the database of the Korean Supreme Court Judgment System were collected. General characteristics, results, and recognized negligence of DIA litigation cases were analyzed.Of 27 lawsuit cases included, antibiotics (n = 6, 22.2%), radiocontrast media (n = 6, 22.2%), and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (n = 5, 18.5%) were the most common drugs that had caused DIA. Cardiac arrest was reported in 23 cases (85.2%). The median time interval from drug administration to diagnosis and from diagnosis to cardiac arrest were 7 (interquartile range, IQR = 0-35) and 5 minutes (IQR = 0-33), respectively, suggesting insufficient time to cope with anaphylaxis. Consequently, either death (n = 18, 66.7%) or ischemic brain injury (n = 9, 33.3%) occurred in all cases. Violation of duty of care was recognized in 19 cases (70.4%) with median awarded amount of $106,060 (IQR = $70,296-$168,363). The recognized negligence included inadequate observation after drug administration (n = 6), delayed or missed epinephrine administration (n = 6), ignoring a history of allergy or drug hypersensitivity (n = 6), and prescription error (n = 5).It is necessary to improve the awareness on DIA, because making a trivial error in any process of history taking, drug prescription and administration, observation, and/or emergency treatment may have fatal consequences that can lead to indemnity.
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.