ArticleHeliyon2023
Medical malpractice and intracranial hemorrhages in the U.S.: An analysis of 121 cases over 35 years.
Article in Heliyon, 2023. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Though all physicians are at risk for medical malpractice litigation, those in surgical specialties, particularly neurosurgeons, are at increased risk. Because intracranial hemorrhages are a life-threatening and commonly misdiagnosed condition, the aim of this study is to identify and increase awareness of factors associated with litigation in cases of intracranial hemorrhages. Methods: The online legal database Westlaw was utilized to query public litigation cases related to the management of intracranial hemorrhages between 1985 and 2020. Various search terms were used to identify cases, and the following variables were extracted: plaintiff demographics, defendant specialty, trial year, court type, location, reason for litigation, plaintiff medical complaints, trial outcomes, and payouts for both verdicts and settlements. Comparative analysis was performed between cases decided in favor of the plaintiff and in favor of the defendant. Results: A total of 121 cases met inclusion criteria. The most common type of hemorrhage was subarachnoid (65.3%), and the most common cause of hemorrhage was cerebral aneurysm/vascular malformation (37.2%). Most cases were brought against a hospital or healthcare system (60.3%), followed by emergency medicine physicians (33.1%), family medicine physicians (10.7%), and neurosurgeons (6.6%). Failure to diagnose was the most common reason for litigation (84.3%). Cases most frequently resulted in verdicts favoring the defense (48.8%), followed by settlements (35.5%). Plaintiffs were found to be significantly younger in cases ruled in favor of the plaintiff than in cases ruled in favor of the defense (p = 0.014). Cases ruled in favor of the plaintiff were also significantly more likely to involve a neurologist (p = 0.029). Conclusions: Most cases of intracranial hemorrhage resulting in malpractice litigation were classified as subarachnoid hemorrhages and caused by aneurysm/vascular malformation. Most cases were brought against hospital systems, and failure to diagnose was the most common reason for litigation. Cases resulting in verdicts in favor of the plaintiff were significantly more likely to involve younger plaintiffs and neurologists.
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.