ArticlePloS one2026
An analysis of pediatric retinoblastoma medical malpractice litigation.
Article in PloS one, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRetinoblastoma is a cancer of the retina that is most commonly diagnosed in the pediatric population. Unfortunately, this cancer can spread, leading to poor outcomes such as enucleation. The purpose of this study was to determine the characteristics of medical malpractice litigation associated with a diagnosis of retinoblastoma in the pediatric population.
methodsA search for all available cases associated with "retinoblastoma" in the Westlaw Campus Research Legal Database was conducted. This spanned from database inception to August 2023. Cases were included if there was a complaint of medical malpractice related to retinoblastoma present in a pediatric patient. Demographic information for each patient was collected. The specialty of the defendant(s), state where the case took place, and case outcomes were also determined.
resultsThirteen cases with a total of 14 patients were analyzed. One case included two siblings who were both diagnosed with retinoblastoma. The majority of the patients were female (N = 10, 71.4%) and all patients were alive at the time of trial. Three of the cases were initiated because an obstetrician-gynecologist/reproductive endocrinologist or ophthalmologist failed to tell a parent about the genetic risks associated with a family history of retinoblastoma. Specialties of the defendant(s) most frequently involved pediatrics (N = 5, 38.4%) and family medicine (N = 4, 30.8%).
conclusionFailure to diagnose retinoblastoma represents the most common context in which malpractice litigation arises in pediatric patients. However, few cases were identified in this study, which may be due to the settlement of these cases out of court. Although retinoblastoma is a condition primarily diagnosed in the pediatric population, our analysis shows that many different specialties are potentially involved during litigation. This highlights the importance of retinoblastoma education and screening across multiple specialties.
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.