Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42221178›Full record

ReviewIndian journal of orthopaedics2026

Guardians of Trust: The Legal and Ethical Dimensions of Protecting Doctor-Patient Confidentiality in Clinical Practice.

Satvik N Pai

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Indian journal of orthopaedics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Satvik N PaiDepartment of Orthopaedics, PESU-IMSR, Bangalore, India.ORCID 0000-0002-3621-150X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Confidentiality forms the foundation of the doctor-patient relationship, fostering trust and promoting honest conversations. With the evolving landscape of clinical practice, ensuring patient privacy has become increasingly complex, requiring a nuanced understanding of ethical obligations and legal responsibilities. This article explores the concept of medical confidentiality, outlines its scope and limitations, and examines real-world scenarios where maintaining confidentiality presents ethical dilemmas and practical challenges. Material and Methods: This article is a narrative review based on a thematic analysis of relevant literature from PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Ethical principles, professional guidelines, and clinical scenarios were reviewed to explore key issues in doctor-patient confidentiality. The aim was to provide a practical and ethically grounded perspective for clinicians. Discussion: Findings underscore that confidentiality extends beyond sensitive clinical data to include all forms of identifiable patient information, across verbal, written, and digital modes. Illustrative examples were used to highlight grey zones in the application of confidentiality principles. Clinical practice often demands context-specific judgment, particularly in team-based care, interactions with families, and digital communication. Maintaining confidentiality requires discretion, clear institutional protocols, and a patient-centered approach. Conclusion: Confidentiality is not merely a professional norm but a core ethical commitment. In an era of increasing digitization and collaboration, safeguarding patient privacy demands vigilance, sensitivity, and proactive communication. Medical professionals must navigate competing interests while upholding the dignity and privacy of their patients.

Indexed as

ConfidentialityDoctor–patient relationshipMedical ethicsPrivacyProfessional conduct

Identifiers

PMID42221178
PMCPMC13219538

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.