ArticleCureus2024
Prescribing Justice: A Close Examination of Physicians Acting As Expert Witnesses in Saudi Arabia.
Article in Cureus, 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
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
4 authors at 1 institution in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAn expert witness is a person who provides testimony on issues that the court finds to be outside the scope of their expertise and experience. Any physician who has performed an independent medical evaluation or written medical records can and should expect to be requested as an expert witness. Medical malpractice, workers' compensation, and personal injury are the most prominent areas where medical expert witnesses participate and provide opinions and testimony. To our knowledge, this is the first study to be conducted in Saudi Arabia on physicians acting as expert witnesses.
methodsThis observational descriptive cross-sectional study conducted in Saudi Arabia from November 2022 to July 2023 aimed to assess physicians' experiences, education, training, willingness, self-competency, attitude, and perception as expert witnesses. The study population consisted of physicians working in Saudi Arabia, with at least a specialist level of professional expertise. Participants completed a self-administered online survey, utilizing a researcher-designed questionnaire.
resultsIn total, 417 participants, with males comprising 51.3% of the sample, responded to the survey. More than half of the physicians (58.3%) had never produced a medical report for the court. Among those who had, the majority had done so one to twice. Similarly, the majority had never testified in court (77.5%), with only a small percentage having done so once or twice. Approximately 80% of participants had no prior education or training as expert witnesses, but among those who did, courses and workshops were the most common forms of education or training. Most participants expressed interest in learning or training for this role (69.1%) and were willing to provide medical reports or court testimony (73.9%). However, half of the participants did not feel competent in writing a medical report for the court, and more than half lacked confidence in giving testimony.
conclusionThe findings highlight the need for increased engagement, education, and training among physicians, particularly early and mid-career professionals, to enhance their confidence and competence as expert witnesses and ensure ethical practices in the medicolegal domain in Saudi Arabia.
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.