ArticleAnnals of Saudi medicine
Medical malpractice in pediatric surgery: an analysis of Supreme Court decisions involving physicians.
Article in Annals of Saudi medicine. 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
backgroundIn pediatric surgical practice, physicians may face malpractice claims leading to substantial compensations and even criminal liability.
objectivesTo examine the legal processes and responsibilities of physicians by reviewing Supreme Court decisions related to malpractice claims involving pediatric surgeons. DESIGN AND SETTINGS: A retrospective study based on the online archive of Supreme Court decisions. PATIENTS AND
methodsA search was conducted using keywords from the Supreme Court decision search engine. Decisions were reached regarding malpractice claims involving pediatric surgery. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: The medical procedure that was the subject of the malpractice claim, the resulting damage, the expertise of the physicians, and the reasons for the Supreme Court's reversal and approval were evaluated. SAMPLE SIZE: 82 Supreme Court decisions.
resultsAmong 82 decisions, circumcision (46%; n=38) was the most common. Appendicitis and testicular torsion followed. Total/subtotal penile amputation was present in 40% (n=15) of circumcisions. Half of the appendicitis cases resulted in death, and all testicular torsion cases resulted in organ loss. General surgeons were the most frequent physicians involved in litigation, accounting for 16% of cases (n=13), followed by pediatric surgeons and general practitioners, each accounting for 15% of cases (n=12). Supreme Courts found physicians at fault in 35% of criminal cases and 38% of civil cases. Deficiencies in expert reports were the reason for reversals in 42% of the decisions.
conclusionSupreme Courts conduct comprehensive evaluations in malpractice cases, considering factors such as indication, authority, fault status, complication management, and causal link. Physicians' understanding of these issues will significantly contribute to minimizing malpractice claims. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective study.
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.