ReviewHippokratia
Medical malpractice cases in Hippocratic collection: a review and today's perspective.
Review in Hippokratia. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Death Related to a Congenital Vascular Anomaly of Pulmonary Hamartoma Type: Malpractice or Tragic Fatality?Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe aim of the present paper is two-fold. First, it reviews the Hippocratic collection to identify instances related to the issue of medical malpractice and medical negligence. Second, it discusses the results viewed from today's perspective, in the context of contemporary theories of liability in malpractice cases.
methodA careful review of the books of Hippocratic collection was performed, as well as a narrative review of the currently available academic literature, focusing on topics of contemporary theories of liability in malpractice cases, which correspond roughly to the medical malpractice instances identified in Hippocratic collection.
resultsThe Hippocratic authors touch on some issues which are essential to the contemporary theory of medical error and negligence, which, however, cannot yet unquestionably address these issues. Among others, they refer to errors that contemporarily might be viewed as technical human errors, errors of omission, or errors which were unavoidable in the context of applied ancient Greek medicine as is the case of injuries that are not based on physician's fault, or situations where the diagnosis of the particular disease or causal link between the physician's breach of duty and the damage suffered, was difficult or even impossible. Interestingly, the Hippocratic authors underscore some errors which might not be based on physician's fault.
conclusionThe passages mentioned in this paper, originating from the Hippocratic collection that refer to medical malpractice, imply an awareness of what is currently discussed as medical malpractice. This consideration may carry some weight, in particular when adopting a flexible traditionalist approach to the medical liability rules. HIPPOKRATIA 2019, 23(3): 99-105.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32581494PMC7307500What 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.