ArticleCureus2026
Product and Equipment Coding in National Practitioner Data Bank Malpractice Payment Reports, 2019-2025.
Article 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCodes related to products and equipment in the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) may identify only a selected subset of malpractice payment reports involving medical products. Our objective was to compare coded injury severity and payment profiles between physician malpractice payment reports with and without product or equipment coding, and to determine whether any differences reflected allegation-group composition, so that researchers can judge whether these codes are usable as a standalone case definition for product-related malpractice.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of United States physician malpractice payment reports in the NPDB Public Use File with report origination years from 2019 through 2025, the seven most recent complete origination years in the file. Product or equipment coding was identified from the allegation group and allegation code fields. Payments are released in the Public Use File as categorical bands representing the payment made by the payer for the named practitioner; each band was represented by its midpoint. We compared coded injury severity and banded payment distributions and estimated associations with severe injury or death before and after adjustment for allegation group.
resultsAmong 54,351 reports, 589 (1.08%) had product or equipment coding. Severe injury or death was coded in 77 product/equipment-coded reports (13.1%) and 26,467 non-product/equipment-coded reports (49.2%); death was coded in 40 product/equipment-coded reports (6.8%) and 17,240 non-product/equipment-coded reports (32.1%). Median payment-band midpoint values were $97,500 for product/equipment-coded reports and $265,000 for non-product/equipment-coded reports. The association between product or equipment coding and lower odds of coded severe injury or death persisted after adjustment for allegation group (adjusted odds ratio, 0.29; 95% confidence interval, 0.21-0.40).
conclusionsPhysician malpractice payment reports containing product or equipment codes were rare and had lower coded injury severity and payment values than other physician reports. These findings describe how claims are coded rather than how severely patients were injured, and the codes should not be used alone to define or estimate the malpractice burden associated with medical products.
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.