ArticleActa oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden)2026
Malpractice claims for pancreatic cancer in Norway: claim-rates, injury domains, claim outcomes and indemnity compensation.
Article in Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden), 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposePancreatic cancer is difficult to diagnose early and at a curative stage, yet little is known about errors in management. The aim of the study was to investigate malpractice claims in Norway. PATIENTS AND
methodsAll malpractice claims filed to the Norwegian System of Patient Injury Compensation between 2015 and 2024 for pancreatic cancer were evaluated.
resultsA total of 148 claims (median 15 [range 8-20] claims/year) were filed among 9548 patients with pancreatic cancer, for an average claim rate of 1.55% (1 claim per every 65 pancreatic cancers). Most claims were filed against hospital/specialists (n = 90), followed by general practitioners (n = 49) with nine claims towards private practice contractors (P < 0.001). A total of 33 claims (22.3%) were approved, of which 28 (85%) concerned delayed diagnosis. Radiology was involved in 18 of the 33 approvals. According to caretaker-level for the malpractice claim, approved claims were 23% for hospital-claims, with lowest approval-rate against general practitioners (12%), and highest against private contractors (66%). Median delay in diagnosis was estimated at 6 months. The outcome of the error was 'death' in 16 of 33. Prognostic loss was determined in five of 33 patients, while 12 patients had no prognostic loss despite an approved claim. Caretaker-level did not differ regarding death or prognostic loss in claims (P = 0.203). A total of 1.47 million EUR was paid in indemnity payments.
interpretationThe claim rate of 1.5% was stable, with about one in five claims approved. Diagnostic delay was the predominant cause, with several stakeholders involved across the healthcare system.
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.