ArticlePloS one2025
Risk factors and management of medical disputes: An analysis of preliminary appraisal reports.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Causes, Characteristics, and Risk Factors of Medical Damage Liability Disputes: A 13-Year Retrospective Analysis of 1761 Litigation Cases in Chongqing, China.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Risk Factors and Liability Distribution in Medical Disputes Related to Spinal Diseases: A Six-Year Retrospective Study in Beijing.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMedical disputes represent a growing challenge in healthcare, with implications for patient safety, legal liability, and institutional trust. Identifying contributing factors and risk patterns is essential for developing effective prevention strategies.
methodsWe analyzed 70 preliminary medical dispute appraisal reports from Chung Shan Medical University Hospital (CSMUH), commissioned by Taiwan's Ministry of Health and Welfare between 2017 and 2023. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression were used to examine demographic characteristics, institutional and specialty distributions, and associations between duty violations and malpractice determinations.
resultsMost physician respondents were male (76.92%), while 56.16% of patients were female. Disputes were most frequently associated with medical centers (35.70%) and clinics (32.90%). In terms of specialty classification, surgical departments accounted for 55.29% of the specialties involved, including obstetrics and gynecology, orthopedics, and neurosurgery. Non-surgical departments accounted for 44.71%, including neurology, emergency medicine, and internal medicine. Violations of standard medical practice, incomplete documentation, and inadequate preoperative assessment were significantly associated with malpractice findings. Notably, inadequate preoperative assessment had an odds ratio (OR) of 39.74 (95% CI: 3.33-474.98, P = 0.0036), and disclosure failures had an OR of 12.75 (95% CI: 1.91-84.95, P = 0.0085).
conclusionsDuty violations related to clinical decision-making and informed consent significantly increase the likelihood of malpractice determinations. Targeted interventions in high-risk specialties and outpatient settings may improve legal defensibility and reduce preventable disputes.
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.