ArticleFoot & ankle orthopaedics2025
Compensation Claims After Treatment of Achilles Tendon Ruptures in Norway From 2010 to 2020.
Article in Foot & ankle orthopaedics, 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
Background: Compensation claims caused by medical treatment errors provide valuable insights into patients' experiences with received medical treatment and can help identify injuries and disabilities that might be preventable through optimized care. The objective of this retrospective descriptive study was to characterize accepted compensation claims filed after treatment for acute Achilles tendon rupture (ATR) in Norway, and to explore whether claim outcomes were associated with treatment modality or institutional catchment area. Methods: All claims filed to the Norwegian System of Patient Injury Compensation (NPE) after treatment of ATR between 2010 and 2020 were collected and categorized. The claims were organised based on whether they were accepted or denied, the initial treatment given, patient demographics, the reasons given by patients for filing claims, and the rationale provided by the NPE for accepting or rejecting compensation claims. Additionally, hospital patient catchment population were analyzed in relation to accepted claims. Results: One hundred forty-six compensation claims were received, of which 61 (41.8%) were accepted. Most accepted claims were related to surgical treatment (n = 30, 49%) or insufficient treatment (n = 22, 36%). The most frequent reason for claim acceptance was delayed diagnosis and/or treatment (15/61, 25%), followed by postoperative infections (10/61, 16%). There was no statistically significant correlation between accepted claims and institutional catchment area population. Conclusion: Delayed or missed diagnosis was the most common reason for accepted compensation claims following treatment for ATR. The study found no correlation between accepted claims and the catchment area population of the institution delivering the treatment.
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.