ArticleJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2026
Risk Factors and Liability Distribution in Medical Disputes Related to Spinal Diseases: A Six-Year Retrospective Study in Beijing.
Article in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To summarize the characteristics and liability distribution of medical disputes related to spinal diseases in Beijing and to identify factors associated with major harm and liability allocation. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 180 spine-related dispute cases obtained from the Beijing Medical Dispute Mediation Committee (January 2015-December 2020). We extracted information on outcomes, liability allocation, and potential risk factors, and performed descriptive and regression analyses. Results: The main adverse events leading to disputes were misdiagnosis/mistreatment (61 cases, 33.9%), surgical/operation errors (54 cases, 30.0%), infection (13 cases, 7.2%), new neurologic deficit (13 cases, 7.2%), and insufficient symptom relief (10 cases, 5.6%). Additionally, 29 cases (16.1%) were determined as disease/treatment itself. Physicians were primarily liable in 116 cases (64.4%), and major patient harm occurred in 33 cases (18.3%). Major harm was associated with misdiagnosis/mistreatment (univariate analysis, P=0.006; multivariate analysis, OR= 3.281, 95% CI 1.359-7.918, P=0.008), emergency (univariate analysis, P=0.020; multivariate analysis, OR=13.446, 95% CI 1.042-173.422, P=0.046), and treatment during holidays (univariate analysis, P=0.035; multivariate analysis, OR=4.125, 95% CI 1.182-14.399, P=0.026). Liability distribution for misdiagnosis/mistreatment was unfavorable to the doctors (univariate analysis, P=0.028; multivariate analysis, OR=2.144, 95% CI 1.071-4.291, P=0.031). Overall, 116 cases (64.4%) were resolved through mediation, with an actual average compensation amount of 220,272.72 RMB (range 5,000-2,381,523 RMB). Conclusion: This study characterizes the clinical features, liability distribution, and factors associated with major harm in spine-related medical disputes handled through formal mediation in Beijing. The findings provide region-specific evidence that may support targeted quality improvement, clinical risk management, and dispute-prevention strategies in spine care.
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.