Written by James M. Wheeler, MD, MPH, JD

In legal disputes, medical literature is often introduced to support or challenge claims. Yet not all studies are created equal, and not all research is applicable to a particular case. Critical evaluation of medical literature requires examining methodology, bias, and relevance to the facts in question.

The Role of Medical Literature in Legal Disputes

Medical literature can provide powerful evidence, but it can also mislead if taken out of context. Attorneys may encounter research offered to bolster causation arguments or to dispute liability; in one memorable recent case, critical review of opposing experts cited medical literature actually supported my conclusions better than his own.  Without proper evaluation, flawed studies may be presented as credible, and improperly sway the finders of fact from a more evidence-based set of conclusions..

Criteria for Scientific Validity

When I review medical literature, I assess study design, sample size, control methods, statistical testing, and peer-review quality. These criteria help distinguish between robust science and unreliable data - all of which can be cited seemingly similarly by opposing counsel and experts..

Why Not All Studies Apply

Even well-designed research may not apply to a specific case. For example, a study conducted on a narrow patient population may not be relevant to the individual at issue; in clinical epidemiology, this is an issue of what is termed, ‘generalizability’.  Newer research techniques looking at pooled study results require newer tests of methodologic rigor, e.g., tests of heterogeneity in meta-analyses.  Applicability requires careful comparison of study inclusion/exclusion criteria, methods of data collection, statistical analysis of those data, interpretation of those findings with prior published results - all in comparison with the facts within the case at issue.

Methods for Ensuring Reliability

My approach combines epidemiology, biostatistics, and clinical medicine to ensure findings are interpreted accurately. I separate speculation from evidence, helping attorneys understand which studies strengthen their case and which do not.  Furthermore, these principles help tremendously in assessing opposing arguments, expert opinions, and cited medical literature.

Closing

Scientific clarity ensures fairness. My role is to provide evidence-based interpretation of clinical studies that attorneys and insurers can rely on. To learn more about my literature review services, visit jimwheelermd.com.