ArticleUrology research & practice2025
Men's Health & Sexual Medicine and the Litigious Patient: A Review of Malpractice Cases.
Article in Urology research & practice, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Recent literature suggests growing rates of malpractice claims against urologists. These cases provide insight into errors that may lead to litigation. We aim to analyze malpractice suits related to men's health and highlight clinical presentations and legal outcomes. Methods: Per STROBE guidelines, we searched the publicly available Thomson Reuters Westlaw legal database for "jury verdicts and settlements" from January 1970 to August 2023 to identify medical malpractice cases in Urology. Patient demographics, clinical presentation, alleged error, and legal outcomes were abstracted during a full case review by an independent screener. Cases related to men's sexual health or fertility that named a urologist as the defendant were fully analyzed. Results: A total of 553 urology cases were extracted, with 23 men's health related cases subsequently analyzed. The most common conditions associated with litigation were penile prosthesis (39%), epidydimal pathology (13%), and varicocele (13%). The most common allegations were misdiagnosis (26%), surgical complication (22%), lack of informed consent (22%), and violation of standard of care (22%). Of the 23 cases, 57% ruled "no liability" in favor of the urologist and 39% ruled in favor of the plaintiff with a median award of $335,000 (IQR = 100 ,000-450, with 000). Among cases ruled as negligent, performing the incorrect procedure, surgical complications, and violating the standard of care were prominent allegations. Conclusions: This study characterizes malpractice cases related to men's sexual health naming urologists as defendants. Obtaining comprehensive informed consent, following national guidelines, and responding appropriately to surgical complications may minimize likelihood of litigation and maximize patient outcomes.
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.