Observational studyNeurosurgery2025
Medical Malpractice in Neurosurgery: An Analysis of Claims in the Netherlands.
Observational study in Neurosurgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Efficacy of chemical prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism after degenerative spine surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Asian spine journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesStudying malpractice claims is important to improve quality of health care and patient safety and to educate the individual healthcare providers. The objective of this study was to describe characteristics of neurosurgical claims in the Netherlands.
methodsA nationwide retrospective observational study of neurosurgery-related claims closed by Centramed and MediRisk, 2 major insurance companies in the Netherlands, was performed. Relevant data, including type of neurosurgical pathology, theme and category of the claim, type and severity of injury, outcome, and financial burden, were extracted from anonymized claim files. The estimated annual risk was used to determine the risk for claims by adjusting for the number of annually practicing neurosurgeons in the Netherlands.
resultsA total of 388 claims against neurosurgeons were closed between 2007 and 2021. Liability was denied in a slight majority of claims (n = 230; 59%). The total burden during this period was €6 165 000 (amount paid out to patients: €5 497 000). The estimated annual risk per Dutch neurosurgeon for a claim was 15.5%, meaning 1 claim per 6.5 years. The case-level analysis of 238 available anonymized claims revealed that most claims were related to spinal pathology (81.5%), followed by cranial pathology (10.9%) and peripheral nerve (7.6%). The motivations for filing claims were mostly related to alleged surgical (56.3%) or diagnostic errors (22.3%). Most of these claims were denied (151/238; 63.4%), and fewer were settled (42/238; 17.6%), sustained (31/238; 13.0%), or closed without final decision (14/238; 5.9%).
conclusionNeurosurgery-related malpractice claims primarily involved spinal pathology and were mostly related to alleged treatment errors. Most claims did not result in compensation because there seemed to be no liability or culpable injury. However, the annual risk for a claim for Dutch neurosurgeons is considerable.
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.