ReviewCureus2026
The Neurosurgeon on Trial: A Scoping Review of International Trends in Medicolegal Litigation Related to Neurosurgery.
Review in Cureus, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The intersection of neurosurgery and legal issues has intensified due to reported increases in litigation rates in several regions, particularly in high-risk specialties such as spine surgery. This study investigates the trends and implications of medicolegal challenges in neurosurgery across various countries, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive understanding among practitioners and policymakers. This scoping review followed the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. A literature search was conducted across databases, including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, using key terms such as "neurosurgery," "malpractice," and "litigation," focusing on peer-reviewed studies published within the past 15 years. Inclusion criteria targeted studies detailing claims specific to neurosurgeons, while excluding non-related literature. No formal quality appraisal of included studies was performed, consistent with the objectives of a scoping review. Of the 180 identified studies, 13 met the eligibility criteria and collectively reported on 3,728 malpractice claims, predominantly from high-income countries, with 63% originating in the United States. While most cases favored neurosurgeons (61.29% overall), variations existed by region, reflecting differences in legal environments. Across the included studies, the distribution of reported claims over the study period appeared variable, with no consistent temporal trend identified. Notably, high monetary compensations were observed, with the U.S. averaging $439,146 per claim. These compensation figures are presented descriptively and do not imply comparative financial impact. The review highlights the predominance of litigation associated with spinal procedures and describes the reported influence of defensive medicine on clinical decision-making. Despite favorable outcomes for neurosurgeons in low- to middle-income countries, the relatively lower number of reported claims may suggest possible underreporting in these settings. The findings underscore the need for improved documentation, communication strategies in clinical practice, and support systems for neurosurgeons. Continued research is necessary to better understand the relationship between medicolegal processes and patient care outcomes.
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.