ArticleCureus2025
The Analysis of Medical Malpractice Litigation Related to Diagnosis of Headache in Japan: Mitigating Medicolegal Risks for Primary Care Physicians.
Article in Cureus, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMalpractice disputes are a major problem for physicians. Headache is one of the most common symptoms seen in medical settings, and therefore often an issue in malpractice cases. Little is known about the characteristics of headache in cases that end up as malpractice suits.
methodsThis study reviews all civil lawsuits involving headache that were identified in a Japanese database of lawsuits (Westlaw Japan). This study examined the basic characteristics, main issues, and results in each case, as well as the features of headaches, including clinical characteristics for secondary headaches and "red flags" identified by the court.
resultsIn total, 2,906 cases were examined, of which 48 headache-related negligence lawsuits were retained for analysis. Judgments in these cases were delivered between January 2001 and November 2022. All 48 cases involved issues related to the diagnosis or treatment of headaches. Six cases were excluded because they were judgments from appeal courts or the Supreme Court, and judgments from lower courts in these cases were already included. Overall, 35 cases involved issues related to the diagnosis of headaches. No statistically significant differences were found between cases with and without negligence in terms of basic characteristics and the prevalence of red flags.
conclusionsThis study examined the basic characteristics of medical malpractice lawsuits related to the diagnosis and treatment of headache in Japan. No available features for avoiding medical malpractice and legal negligence were found. Even when no obvious red flags of secondary headache are identified, diagnostic errors could still lead to findings of negligence in malpractice claims.
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.