ReviewPathologica2025
Malpractice in head and neck cancer: a comprehensive medico-legal review.
Review in Pathologica, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Head and neck (H&N) malignancies include a broad spectrum of clinical presentations and outcomes. Sources of risks, errors and mistakes are intrinsic to every therapeutical-diagnostic step leading to potential burden of malpractice allegations and threaten delivery of healthcare. The purpose of this review is to report key factors of malpractice litigation H&N neoplasms, analyzing its ethical-deontological and medico-legal aspects with a focus on Italian law. PubMed and Scopus databases were accessed to assess existing cases of oncological H&N malpractice. Twelve articles were identified according to search criteria in the selected period (2000-2024). Inclusion criteria lead to 6 articles pertaining to analysis of allegations of malpractice in H&N tumors. Diagnostic delay and informed consent issues are the most represented allegations. Poor access and lack of standardization in legal databases is commonly seen as a factor that holds back a thorough litigation analysis. This review adds evidence about common features of medical malpractice allegations through a medico-legal perspective that may help in adopting preventive strategies to mitigate risks and enhance patient safety. Combining data deriving from different studies, the paper contributes to understand the evolution of the trajectory of malpractice in this field.
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.