ArticleForensic science, medicine, and pathology2024
Commentary on "Fatal cardiac air embolism after CT-guided percutaneous needle lung biopsy: medical complication or medical malpractice?"
Article in Forensic science, medicine, and pathology, 2024. 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
- Commented on by
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To differentiate between medical malpractice and expected, but rare, medical complication in a medicolegal autopsy context is often difficult. Such an assessment requires knowledge about the clinical practice associated with the procedure at hand, and that findings of the autopsy, including medical relevant information such as patient chart, radiological imaging, and statements from witnesses about the medical procedure itself, provides evidence that substantiate either conclusion. In a case report published in the journal such an assessment is discussed by presenting findings and circumstances surrounding the death of a patient during a percutaneous needle lung biopsy procedure. The authors conclude that the death was not due to medical malpractice. However, in this commentary it is highlighted that the reasoning behind the conclusion needs to be further substantiated.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37357244What 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.