ArticleTrauma surgery & acute care open2025
Subdural hematomas and medical malpractice in the USA: an analysis of 314 patients.
Article in Trauma surgery & acute care open, 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
Introduction: Subdural hematomas (SDHs) are a serious condition that can lead to high rates of morbidity and mortality. Given the prevalence of malpractice in healthcare, particularly among physicians who treat patients with high-risk conditions, the aim of this study was to analyze factors that impact litigation outcomes in cases pertaining to SDH. Methods: The online legal database, Westlaw Edge, was used to identify cases related to malpractice and SDH between 1977 to 2023. Plaintiff demographics, geographic location, defendant specialties, reason for litigation, and trial outcomes were obtained. Results: Three hundred and fourteen cases were included in the analysis. The most common reason for litigation was negligent care in a healthcare setting resulting in SDH (55.4%), followed by failure to diagnose (47.1%). Trauma (74.8%) was the most common cause of SDH. The most frequently cited defendants were emergency medicine physicians (76.4%). Most cases ended in a jury verdict in favor of the defense (64.5%). The only factor that was associated with a significantly higher rate of plaintiff compared with defendant verdicts was premature hospital discharge (p=0.007). The mean settlement was $658 741.65, whereas the mean plaintiff verdict payment was $4402 261.63. Conclusion: Emergency medicine physicians are the most likely specialty to be sued in cases of SDH. Failure to diagnose and negligent care resulting in a subdural bleed are the most common reasons for litigation pertaining to this condition. Juries are more likely to return a verdict in favor of the defense. However, settlements are often less costly for defendants in comparison to the payouts of cases that were ruled in favor of the plaintiff.
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.