ArticleSao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina
Plastic surgery professional misconduct: a cross-sectional study on cases between 2008 and 2017, filed before the São Paulo State Medical Board.
Article in Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn plastic surgery, a lack of ethical and moral behavior by professionals can result in unfortunate circumstances and can justify ethical-disciplinary procedures.
objectiveTo review 421 plastic surgery professional-misconduct cases filed before the São Paulo State Medical Board (CREMESP) between 2008 and 2017. DESIGN AND
settingCross-sectional study conducted in a medical council.
methodsThe cases were categorized according to sex, age, medical specialty (plastic surgery, other field or none), medical ethics code chapter(s) involved, ethics code articles violated and board ruling/outcome.
resultsMost of the defendants were men over 40 years of age who were experienced in their professional practice and who graduated from public and private universities all over Brazil; 47.74% had a specialist title in plastic surgery. Violation of professional responsibility (medical malpractice, recklessness or negligence) was the commonest complaint (28.43%), followed by medical advertising (24.19%) and poor doctor-patient relationship (10.39%), in violation of articles 18, 51, 75 and 1. Among the 233 cases adjudicated over this period, 133 resulted in disciplinary sanction, 80 were ruled in the physician's favor and 20 were dismissed.
conclusionClassification of plastic surgery professional-misconduct cases creates possibilities for adopting preventive measures for good practice in this specialty, which would consequently reduce the number of complaints to the regional medical boards.
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.