Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ.
Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ; Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ.
Urology. 2014 Apr;83(4):704-8. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2013.11.045.
To evaluate the credentials of urologists choosing to testify as expert witnesses. As health care reform has become an increasingly important topic in national debate, medical malpractice and related issues have come to the forefront of topics for discussion by the medical community. Physicians are often recruited to testify as expert witnesses in malpractice cases. Defining what constitutes an expert in this setting has been an area of controversy.
The Westlaw legal database was searched for medical malpractice litigation. Data regarding number of years of experience and practice setting were obtained for urologists using private practice and hospital listings, academic faculty profiles, and state medical licensing databases. Scholarly impact, as measured by the h-index, was calculated by the Scopus database.
Plaintiff expert witnesses were found to have slightly more years of experience vs defendant expert witnesses (35.7 vs 32.2 years, P = .01), but had a lower h-index (6.8 vs 10.2, P = .03), were less likely to practice in the academic setting (39% vs 60%, P = .001), and were more likely to testify multiple times.
Urologists testifying for plaintiffs and defendants both had over 30 years of experience on average, with those in the latter having slightly less experience. Defendant witnesses, however, had greater scholarly impact and were more likely to practice in an academic setting. Organizations such as the American Urological Association may wish to re-evaluate guidelines on expert witness testimony, particularly regarding those who testify frequently.
评估选择作为专家证人的泌尿科医生的资质。随着医疗改革成为国家辩论中日益重要的话题，医疗事故和相关问题已成为医学界讨论的焦点。医生经常被招募为医疗事故案件作证。在这种情况下，定义什么是专家一直是有争议的领域。
在 Westlaw 法律数据库中搜索医疗事故诉讼。使用私人执业和医院清单、学术教员资料和州医疗执照数据库获取泌尿科医生的经验年限和执业地点数据。Scopus 数据库计算学术影响力，用 h 指数衡量。
与被告专家证人相比，原告专家证人的经验稍多（35.7 年对 32.2 年，P =.01），但 h 指数较低（6.8 对 10.2，P =.03），在学术环境中执业的可能性较小（39%对 60%，P =.001），并且更有可能多次作证。
为原告和被告作证的泌尿科医生平均经验都超过 30 年，后者的经验稍少。然而，被告证人的学术影响力更大，更有可能在学术环境中执业。美国泌尿科协会等组织可能希望重新评估专家证人证词的准则，特别是针对那些经常作证的人。
