JHSM
Journal of Health Sciences and Medicine

Journal of Health Sciences and Medicine (JHSM) is an unbiased, peer-reviewed, and open access international medical journal. The Journal publishes interesting clinical and experimental research conducted in all fields of medicine, interesting case reports, and clinical images, invited reviews, editorials, letters, comments, and related knowledge.

eISSN: 2636-8579
Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 International License.
EndNote Style

Submit Manuscript

Index
Original Article
Bibliometric analysis of medical malpractice literature in forensic medicine from 2000 to 2024: a scopus-based study
Abstract
Aims: Forensic medicine, a multidisciplinary field integrating medicine and law, provides an essential framework for examining the evolution of medical malpractice research. Understanding shifts in forensic practices, patterns of institutional collaboration, and emerging research trends is crucial for evaluating developments within the discipline. This study aimed to conduct a bibliometric analysis of the global literature on medical malpractice examined within medico-legal and forensic medicine contexts between 2000 and 2024, in order to identify publication trends, citation patterns, collaboration networks, and thematic developments.
Methods: Data were retrieved from the Scopus database on October 15, 2025, using the search terms “medical malpractice,” “medical negligence,” “malpractice,” and “forensic medicine.” A total of 189 English-language research articles published between 2000 and 2024 were included. Descriptive analyses and network visualizations were performed using R Bibliometrix and VOSviewer (v1.6.20).
Results: An average annual growth rate of 4.3% in publication counts was observed. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine was the most productive journal, while Italy, Turkiye, and China were identified as the leading contributing countries. In institutional collaboration networks, Università degli Studi di Milano and Sapienza Università di Roma held central positions. The Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Turkiye demonstrated the highest connection strength among institutions, reflecting an increase in the country’s research capacity in forensic medicine. The most frequently used keywords were “forensic medicine,” “autopsy,” and “liability.”
Conclusion: Medical malpractice research examined within medico-legal and forensic medicine contexts showed a consistent upward trend between 2000 and 2024. European countries continued to occupy central positions in international collaboration networks. Overall, the findings indicate that institutional and interdisciplinary collaboration in forensic medicine research is progressively strengthening worldwide.

Keywords : Forensic medicine, medical malpractice, bibliometrics, international collaboration, medico-legal

Download Article


1. Payne-James J, Busuttil A, Smock W, eds. Forensic Medicine: Clinical and Pathological Aspects. Cambridge University Press; 2003.
2. Payne-James J, McGovern C, Jones R, et al. Simpson’s forensic medicine. 13th ed. CRC Press; 2014.
3. Madea B, Saukko P. Future in forensic medicine as an academic discipline-focussing on research. Forensic Sci Int. 2007;165(2-3):87-91. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2006.05.030
4. Medical Malpractice: prevention, Insurance and coverage options, policy issues in insurance, no. 11. OECD Publishing Paris. doi:10.1787/9789264 029057-en.
5. Mello MM, Studdert DM, Kachalia A. The medical liability climate and prospects for reform. JAMA. 2014;312(20):2146-2155. doi:10.1001/jama. 2014.10705
6. Studdert DM, Mello MM, Sage WM, et al. defensive medicine among high-risk specialist physicians in a volatile malpractice environment. JAMA. 2005;293(21):2609–2617. doi:10.1001/jama.293.21.2609
7. Carrier ER, Reschovsky JD, Katz DA, Mello MM. High physician concern about malpractice risk predicts more aggressive diagnostic testing in office-based practice. Health Aff (Millwood). 2013;32(8):1383-1391. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2013.0233
8. Jena AB, Seabury S, Lakdawalla D, Chandra A. Malpractice risk according to physician specialty. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(7):629-636. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1012370
9. Kessler D, McClellan M, Do doctors practice defensive medicine?, The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 1996;111(2):353-390, doi:10.2307/2946682
10. Warren D. Malpractice: a guide to avoidance and treatment. J Health Polit Policy Law. 1988;13.
11. Brennan TA. Practice guidelines and malpractice litigation: collision or cohesion?. J Health Polit Policy Law. 1991;16(1):67-85. doi:10.1215/036168 78-16-1-67
12. Hyams AL, Shapiro DW, Brennan TA. Medical practice guidelines in malpractice litigation: an early retrospective. J Health Polit Policy Law. 1996;21(2):289-313. doi:10.1215/03616878-21-2-289
13. Matthews JR. Practice guidelines and tort reform: the legal system confronts the technocratic wish. J Health Polit Policy Law. 1999;24(2): 275-304. doi:10.1215/03616878-24-2-275
14. Mehlman MJ. Medical practice guidelines as malpractice safe harbors: illusion or deceit?. J Law Med Ethics. 2012;40(2):286-300. doi:10.1111/j.17 48-720X.2012.00664.x
15. Ferrara SD, Baccino E, Bajanowski T, et al. Malpractice and medical liability. European guidelines on methods of ascertainment and criteria of evaluation. Int J Legal Med. 2013;127(3):545-557. doi:10.1007/s00414-013-0836-5
16. Shi G, Liu N, Yu X, et al. Bibliometric analysis of medical malpractice literature in legal medicine from 1975 to 2018: web of science review. J Forensic Leg Med. 2019;66:167-183. doi:10.1016/j.jflm.2019.07.002
17. Pranckute R. Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: the titans of bibliographic information in today’s academic world. Publications. 2021;9(1):12. doi:10.3390/publications9010012
18. Tennant JP, Ross-Hellauer T. The limitations to our understanding of peer review. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2020;5:6. doi:10.1186/s41073-020-000 92-1
19. van Eck NJ, Waltman L. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics. 2010;84(2):523-538. doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
20. Aria M, Cuccurullo C. Bibliometrix: an R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. J Informetrics. 2017;11(4):959–75. doi:10.1016/j.joi. 2017.08.007
21. Archambault É, Campbell D, Gingras Y, Larivière V. Comparing bibliometric statistics obtained from the Web of Science and Scopus. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2009;60(7):1320–6. doi:10.1002/asi.21062
22. Fernandez-Llimos F. Bradford’s law, the long tail principle, and transparency in journal impact factor calculations. Pharm Pract (Granada). 2016;14(3):842. doi:10.18549/PharmPract.2014.03.842
23. Bornmann L, Leydesdorff L. Scientometrics in a changing research landscape: bibliometrics has become an integral part of research quality evaluation and has been changing the practice of research. EMBO Rep. 2014;15(12):1228-1232. doi:10.15252/embr.201439608
24. Öner BS, Orbay M. Assessing the publication output in the field of forensic science and legal medicine using Web of Science database from 2011 to 2020. Forensic Sci Res. 2022;7(4):748-760. doi:10.1080/20961790.2021. 2002525
25. Wang WY, Zhang L, Chen J, Huang Y. A bibliometric analysis on traumatic brain injury in forensic science. Forensic Sci Int. 2023;345:111 529.
26. Zeybek V. Bibliometric analysis of publications in the field of legal medicine from Türkiye. Adli Tıp Bülteni. 2022;27(3):1587-1596. doi:10. 17986/blm.1587
27. Cecchi R, Cusack D, Ludes B, et al. European Council of Legal Medicine (ECLM) on-site inspection forms for forensic pathology, anthropology, odontology, genetics, entomology and toxicology for forensic and medico-legal scene and corpse investigation: the Parma form. Int J Legal Med. 2022;136(4):1037-1049. doi:10.1007/s00414-021-02734-5
28. Zampa F, Bandey H, Bécue A, et al. ENFSI 2022 multidisciplinary collaborative exercise: organisation and outcomes. Forensic Sci Int Synerg. 2024;8:100465. doi:10.1016/j.fsisyn.2024.100465
Article available in :
Volume 9, Issue 1, 2026
Page : 193-200
https://doi.org/10.32322/jhsm.1823814
Article Information
Received : 14 Kas 2025
Accepted : 26 Ara 2025
Published : 05 Oca 2026
Corresponding Author :

Filiz Ekim Çevik: Department of Medical Sciences, Institute of Forensic Sciences and Legal Medicine, İstanbul University-Cerrahpaşa, İstanbul, Turkiye

[email protected]
Citation : Çevik FE, Buğra A, Aslıyüksek H. Bibliometric analysis of medical malpractice literature in forensic medicine from 2000 to 2024: a scopus-based study. J Health Sci Med. 2026;9(1):193-200. doi:10.32322/jhsm.1823814

Read: 76
Download : 162
Cited: 0
_Footer