ArticleCureus2019
A Qualitative Analysis of Malpractice Litigation in Cardiology Using Case Summaries Through a National Legal Database Analysis.
Article in Cureus, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- How defensive medicine is defined in European medical literature: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2022Pooled it
- Article
- National trends of malpractice-related cardiovascular mortality within the United States, 1999-2020.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2024Review
- Association of physician malpractice claims rates with admissions for low-risk chest pain.American journal of medicine open · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Physicians are increasingly practicing defensive medicine as a response to society's litigious climate. This study sought to characterize cardiology malpractice claims and elucidate the allegations underlying the use of defensive medicine. Methods The WestlawNext™ database was queried to obtain state and federal jury verdicts and settlements related to medical malpractice and cardiology that occurred in the United States between 2010 and 2015. Cardiology cases were identified using the search terms "medical malpractice" and "cardiology" and reviewed by two individuals utilizing available case documents. Duplicate and nonpertinent cases were excluded. Binary logistic regression models were created to predict the likelihood of defendant verdict, plaintiff verdict, and settlement based on the various reasons for litigation cited. Results Inclusion criteria were met in 166 cases. The plaintiffs were predominantly male (94 cases; 56.6%), and the average patient age was 53.3±17.5 years. More than half of the cases involved a cardiologist as a defendant. The most common reasons for litigation were: failure to treat (129; 77.7%), failure to diagnose (115; 69.3%), failure to refer/order diagnostic tests (107; 64.5%), and patient death (118; 71.1%). Among cases tried for failure to diagnose, the most commonly missed diagnosis was myocardial infarction. Cases most commonly resulted in a defendant verdict (94; 56.6%). However, odds of a plaintiff verdict were significantly higher when failure to diagnose was alleged with an odds ratio (OR) of 7.60 (95% confidence interval 1.14 - 50.87, p = 0.0365). Conclusions Failure to diagnose remains a commonly alleged base for litigation. In conclusion, our analysis suggests increased training for non-cardiologists in the recognition of the acute coronary syndrome and enhanced awareness of inherent biases among all physicians may facilitate reducing missed diagnoses.
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.