Departments of Neurological Surgery and.
J Neurosurg. 2014 Jan;120(1):185-90. doi: 10.3171/2013.8.JNS13584. Epub 2013 Sep 27.
Expert witnesses provide a valuable societal service, interpreting complex pieces of evidence that may be misunderstood by nonmedical laypersons. The role of medical expert witness testimony and the potential professional repercussions, however, have been controversial in the medical community. The objective of the present analysis was to characterize the expertise of neurological surgeons testifying as expert witnesses in malpractice litigation.
Malpractice litigation involving expert testimony from neurological surgeons was obtained using the WestlawNext legal database. Data pertaining to duration of a surgeon's practice, scholarly impact (as measured by the h index), practice setting, and the frequency with which a surgeon testifies were obtained for these expert witnesses from various online resources including the Scopus database, online medical facility and practice sites, and state medical licensing boards.
Neurological surgeons testifying in 326 cases since 2008 averaged over 30 years of experience per person (34.5 years for plaintiff witnesses vs 33.2 for defense witnesses, p = 0.35). Defense witnesses had statistically higher scholarly impact than plaintiff witnesses (h index = 8.76 vs 5.46, p < 0.001). A greater proportion of defense witnesses were involved in academic practice (46.1% vs 24.4%, p < 0.001). Those testifying on behalf of plaintiffs were more likely to testify multiple times than those testifying on behalf of defendants (20.4% vs 12.6%).
Practitioners testifying for either side tend to be very experienced, while those testifying on behalf of defendants have significantly higher scholarly impact and are more likely to practice in an academic setting, potentially indicating a greater level of expertise. Experts for plaintiffs were more likely to testify multiple times. Surgical societies may need to clarify the necessary qualifications and ethical responsibilities of those who choose to testify.
专家证人提供了一项有价值的社会服务，他们可以解读可能被非医学外行误解的复杂证据。然而，医学专家证人证言的角色及其潜在的专业影响在医学界一直存在争议。本分析的目的是描述在医疗事故诉讼中担任专家证人的神经外科医生的专业知识。
使用 WestlawNext 法律数据库获取涉及神经外科医生专家证言的医疗事故诉讼。从 Scopus 数据库、在线医疗设施和实践网站以及州医疗执照委员会等各种在线资源中获取有关每位外科医生的执业时间、学术影响力（以 h 指数衡量）、执业环境以及作证频率的数据。
自 2008 年以来，在 326 起案件中作证的神经外科医生平均每人拥有超过 30 年的经验（原告证人 34.5 年，被告证人 33.2 年，p = 0.35）。被告证人的学术影响力明显高于原告证人（h 指数= 8.76 比 5.46，p < 0.001）。更多的被告证人参与学术实践（46.1%比 24.4%，p < 0.001）。代表原告作证的人比代表被告作证的人更有可能多次作证（20.4%比 12.6%）。
代表双方作证的医生往往非常有经验，而代表被告作证的医生的学术影响力明显更高，更有可能在学术环境中执业，这可能表明他们具有更高的专业水平。代表原告的专家更有可能多次作证。外科协会可能需要澄清那些选择作证的人所必需的资格和道德责任。
