Case report

Last updated

In medicine, a case report is a detailed report of the symptoms, signs, diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of an individual patient. Case reports may contain a demographic profile of the patient, but usually describe an unusual or novel occurrence. Some case reports also contain a literature review of other reported cases. Case reports are professional narratives that provide feedback on clinical practice guidelines and offer a framework for early signals of effectiveness, adverse events, and cost. They can be shared for medical, scientific, or educational purposes.

Contents

Types

Most case reports are on one of six topics: [1]

Roles in research and education

A case report is generally considered a type of anecdotal evidence. [2] Given their intrinsic methodological limitations, including lack of statistical sampling, case reports are placed at the bottom of the hierarchy of clinical evidence, together with case series. [3] Nevertheless, case reports do have genuinely useful roles in medical research and evidence-based medicine. [4] In particular, they have facilitated recognition of new diseases and adverse effects of treatments [5] (e.g., recognition of the link between administration of thalidomide to mothers and malformations in their babies was triggered by a case report [6] ). Case reports have a role in pharmacovigilance. [5] They can also help understand the clinical spectrum of rare diseases as well as unusual presentations of common diseases. [4] They can help generate study hypotheses, including plausible mechanisms of disease. [4] Case reports may also have a role to play in guiding the personalization of treatments in clinical practice. [4]

Proponents of case reports have outlined some particular advantages of the format. Case reports and series have a high sensitivity for detecting novelty and therefore remain one of the cornerstones of medical progress; they provide many new ideas in medicine. [7] Whereas randomized clinical trials usually only inspect one variable or very few variables, rarely reflecting the full picture of a complicated medical situation, the case report can detail many different aspects of the patient's medical situation (e.g. patient history, physical examination, diagnosis, psychosocial aspects, follow up). [8]

Because typical, unremarkable cases are less likely to be published, use of case reports as scientific evidence must take into account publication bias. Some case reports also contain an extensive review of the relevant literature on the topic at-hand (and sometimes a systematic review of available evidence). Reports adopting this sort of approach can be identified by terms such as a "case report and review of the literature". Reports containing broader active research such as this might be considered case studies in the true definition of the term.

Case reports can also play a relevant role in medical education, providing a structure for case-based learning. [4]

A particular attraction of case reports is the possibility of quick publication (with respect to more extensive studies such as randomized control trials), allowing them to act as a kind of rapid short communication between busy clinicians who may not have the time or resources to conduct large scale research. [8]

Reporting guidelines

The quality of the scientific reporting of case reports is variable, and sub-optimal reporting hinders the use of case reports to inform research design or help guide clinical practice. [4] In response to these issues, reporting guidelines are under development to facilitate greater transparency and completeness in the provision of relevant information for individual cases. [4] The CARE (i.e. CAse REport) guidelines include a reporting checklist that is listed on the EQUATOR Network, [9] an international initiative aimed at promoting transparent and accurate reporting of health research studies to enhance the value and reliability of medical research literature. This 13-item checklist includes indications regarding the title, key words, abstract, introduction, patient information, clinical findings, timeline, diagnostic assessment, therapeutic interventions, follow-up and outcomes, discussion, patient perspective, and informed consent. [4] An explanation and elaboration article (a manual for writing case reports following the CARE guidelines) was published in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology in 2017. [10]

Publishing

Many international journals publish case reports, but they restrict the number that appear in the print run because this has an adverse effect on the journal's impact factor. [11] Case reports are often published online, and there is often still a requirement for a subscription to access them. However, an increasing number of journals are devoted to publishing case reports alone, most of which are open access. [12] [11] The first of these to start publishing, in 2001, was Grand Rounds . [13] [14]

There are a number of websites that allow patients to submit and share their own patient case reports with other people. PatientsLikeMe [15] and Treatment Report [16] are two such sites.

Use of terminology outside science

The term is also used to describe non-scientific reports usually prepared for educational reasons.

Famous scientific case reports

See also

Related Research Articles

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is "the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients." The aim of EBM is to integrate the experience of the clinician, the values of the patient, and the best available scientific information to guide decision-making about clinical management. The term was originally used to describe an approach to teaching the practice of medicine and improving decisions by individual physicians about individual patients.

<i>British National Formulary</i> Pharmaceutical reference book for the UK

The British National Formulary (BNF) is a United Kingdom (UK) pharmaceutical reference book that contains a wide spectrum of information and advice on prescribing and pharmacology, along with specific facts and details about many medicines available on the UK National Health Service (NHS). Information within the BNF includes indication(s), contraindications, side effects, doses, legal classification, names and prices of available proprietary and generic formulations, and any other notable points. Though it is a national formulary, it nevertheless also includes entries for some medicines which are not available under the NHS, and must be prescribed and/or purchased privately. A symbol clearly denotes such drugs in their entry.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Randomized controlled trial</span> Form of scientific experiment

A randomized controlled trial is a form of scientific experiment used to control factors not under direct experimental control. Examples of RCTs are clinical trials that compare the effects of drugs, surgical techniques, medical devices, diagnostic procedures, diets or other medical treatments.

In a blind or blinded experiment, information which may influence the participants of the experiment is withheld until after the experiment is complete. Good blinding can reduce or eliminate experimental biases that arise from a participants' expectations, observer's effect on the participants, observer bias, confirmation bias, and other sources. A blind can be imposed on any participant of an experiment, including subjects, researchers, technicians, data analysts, and evaluators. In some cases, while blinding would be useful, it is impossible or unethical. For example, it is not possible to blind a patient to their treatment in a physical therapy intervention. A good clinical protocol ensures that blinding is as effective as possible within ethical and practical constraints.

A patient is any recipient of health care services that are performed by healthcare professionals. The patient is most often ill or injured and in need of treatment by a physician, nurse, optometrist, dentist, veterinarian, or other health care provider.

A medical error is a preventable adverse effect of care ("iatrogenesis"), whether or not it is evident or harmful to the patient. This might include an inaccurate or incomplete diagnosis or treatment of a disease, injury, syndrome, behavior, infection, or other ailment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Medical guideline</span> Document with the aim of guiding decisions and criteria in healthcare

A medical guideline is a document with the aim of guiding decisions and criteria regarding diagnosis, management, and treatment in specific areas of healthcare. Such documents have been in use for thousands of years during the entire history of medicine. However, in contrast to previous approaches, which were often based on tradition or authority, modern medical guidelines are based on an examination of current evidence within the paradigm of evidence-based medicine. They usually include summarized consensus statements on best practice in healthcare. A healthcare provider is obliged to know the medical guidelines of their profession, and has to decide whether to follow the recommendations of a guideline for an individual treatment.

Overdiagnosis is the diagnosis of disease that will never cause symptoms or death during a patient's ordinarily expected lifetime and thus presents no practical threat regardless of being pathologic. Overdiagnosis is a side effect of screening for early forms of disease. Although screening saves lives in some cases, in others it may turn people into patients unnecessarily and may lead to treatments that do no good and perhaps do harm. Given the tremendous variability that is normal in biology, it is inherent that the more one screens, the more incidental findings will generally be found. For a large percentage of them, the most appropriate medical response is to recognize them as something that does not require intervention; but determining which action a particular finding warrants can be very difficult, whether because the differential diagnosis is uncertain or because the risk ratio is uncertain.

A hierarchy of evidence, comprising levels of evidence (LOEs), that is, evidence levels (ELs), is a heuristic used to rank the relative strength of results obtained from experimental research, especially medical research. There is broad agreement on the relative strength of large-scale, epidemiological studies. More than 80 different hierarchies have been proposed for assessing medical evidence. The design of the study and the endpoints measured affect the strength of the evidence. In clinical research, the best evidence for treatment efficacy is mainly from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Systematic reviews of completed, high-quality randomized controlled trials – such as those published by the Cochrane Collaboration – rank the same as systematic review of completed high-quality observational studies in regard to the study of side effects. Evidence hierarchies are often applied in evidence-based practices and are integral to evidence-based medicine (EBM).

Patient safety is a discipline that emphasizes safety in health care through the prevention, reduction, reporting and analysis of error and other types of unnecessary harm that often lead to adverse patient events. The frequency and magnitude of avoidable adverse events, often known as patient safety incidents, experienced by patients was not well known until the 1990s, when multiple countries reported significant numbers of patients harmed and killed by medical errors. Recognizing that healthcare errors impact 1 in every 10 patients around the world, the World Health Organization (WHO) calls patient safety an endemic concern. Indeed, patient safety has emerged as a distinct healthcare discipline supported by an immature yet developing scientific framework. There is a significant transdisciplinary body of theoretical and research literature that informs the science of patient safety with mobile health apps being a growing area of research.

The STROBE(STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology) Statement is a reporting guideline including a checklist of 22 items that are considered essential for good reporting of observational studies. It was published simultaneously in several leading biomedical journals in October and November 2007 and comprises both the checklist and an explanation and elaboration article which gives examples of good reporting and provides authors with more guidance on good reporting. It is also referred to in the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals established by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and is endorsed by hundreds of biomedical journals.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Controversies related to ME/CFS</span> Controversies and issues related to ME/CFS

Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) is an illness with a history of controversy. Although it is classified as an organic disease, it was historically assumed to be psychosocial, and a minority of medical professionals still hold this view. The pathophysiology of ME/CFS remains unclear, there exists many competing diagnostic criteria, and some proposed treatments are controversial. There is a lack of awareness about the condition, which has led to substantiated accusations of patient neglect and harm.

The Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of health research Network is an international initiative aimed at promoting transparent and accurate reporting of health research studies to enhance the value and reliability of medical research literature. The EQUATOR Network is hosted by the University of Oxford, and was established with the goals of raising awareness of the importance of good reporting of research, assisting in the development, dissemination and implementation of reporting guidelines for different types of study designs, monitoring the status of the quality of reporting of research studies in the health sciences literature, and conducting research relating to issues that impact the quality of reporting of health research studies. The Network acts as an "umbrella" organisation, bringing together developers of reporting guidelines, medical journal editors and peer reviewers, research funding bodies, and other key stakeholders with a mutual interest in improving the quality of research publications and research itself. The EQUATOR Network comprises five centres at the University of Oxford, Bond University, Paris Descartes University, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, and Hong Kong Baptiste University.

Dental antibiotic prophylaxis is the administration of antibiotics to a dental patient for prevention of harmful consequences of bacteremia, that may be caused by invasion of the oral flora into an injured gingival or peri-apical vessel during dental treatment.

Alessandro Liberati was an Italian healthcare researcher and clinical epidemiologist, and founder of the Italian Cochrane Centre.

Overscreening, also called unnecessary screening, is the performance of medical screening without a medical indication to do so. Screening is a medical test in a healthy person who is showing no symptoms of a disease and is intended to detect a disease so that a person may prepare to respond to it. Screening is indicated in people who have some threshold risk for getting a disease, but is not indicated in people who are unlikely to develop a disease. Overscreening is a type of unnecessary health care.

The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM), based in the Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences at the University of Oxford, is an academic-led centre dedicated to the practice, teaching, and dissemination of high quality evidence-based medicine to improve healthcare in everyday clinical practice. CEBM was founded by David Sackett in 1995. It was subsequently directed by Brian Haynes and Paul Glasziou. Since 2010 it has been led by Professor Carl Heneghan, a clinical epidemiologist and general practitioner.

The GRADE approach is a method of assessing the certainty in evidence and the strength of recommendations in health care. It provides a structured and transparent evaluation of the importance of outcomes of alternative management strategies, acknowledgment of patients and the public values and preferences, and comprehensive criteria for downgrading and upgrading certainty in evidence. It has important implications for those summarizing evidence for systematic reviews, health technology assessments, and clinical practice guidelines as well as other decision makers.

Allegiance bias in behavioral sciences is a bias resulted from the investigator's or researcher's allegiance to a specific school of thought. Researchers/investigators have been exposed to many types of branches of psychology or schools of thought. Naturally they adopt a school or branch that fits with their paradigm of thinking. More specifically, allegiance bias is when this leads therapists, researchers, etc. believing that their school of thought or treatment is superior to others. Their superior belief to these certain schools of thought can bias their research in effective treatments trials or investigative situations leading to allegiance bias. Reason being is that they may have devoted their thinking to certain treatments they have seen work in their past experiences. This can lead to errors in interpreting the results of their research. Their “pledge” to stay within their own paradigm of thinking may affect their ability to find more effective treatments to help the patient or situation they are investigating.

The treatment and management of COVID-19 combines both supportive care, which includes treatment to relieve symptoms, fluid therapy, oxygen support as needed, and a growing list of approved medications. Highly effective vaccines have reduced mortality related to SARS-CoV-2; however, for those awaiting vaccination, as well as for the estimated millions of immunocompromised persons who are unlikely to respond robustly to vaccination, treatment remains important. Some people may experience persistent symptoms or disability after recovery from the infection, known as long COVID, but there is still limited information on the best management and rehabilitation for this condition.

References

  1. ↑ Debra Volkland; Robert L. Iles (1997). Guidebook to better medical writing. Washington, DC: Island Press. ISBN   978-0-9661831-0-8. OCLC   41579709.
  2. ↑ Aronson JK (June 2003). "Anecdotes as evidence". BMJ. 326 (7403): 1346. doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7403.1346. PMC   1126236 . PMID   12816800.
  3. ↑ Greenhalgh T (July 1997). "How to read a paper. Getting your bearings (deciding what the paper is about)". BMJ. 315 (7102): 243–6. doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7102.243. PMC   2127173 . PMID   9253275.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Gagnier JJ, Kienle G, Altman DG, Moher D, Sox H, Riley D (2013). "The CARE guidelines: consensus-based clinical case reporting guideline development". Headache. 53 (10): 1541–7. doi:10.1111/head.12246. PMC   3784031 . PMID   24266334.
  5. 1 2 Aronson JK, Hauben M (December 2006). "Anecdotes that provide definitive evidence". BMJ. 333 (7581): 1267–9. doi:10.1136/bmj.39036.666389.94. PMC   1702478 . PMID   17170419.
  6. ↑ "Thalidomide and congenital abnormalities". James Lind Library. Retrieved 28 May 2014.
  7. ↑ Vandenbroucke JP (February 2001). "In defense of case reports and case series". Ann. Intern. Med. 134 (4): 330–4. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-134-4-200102200-00017. PMID   11182844. S2CID   867759.
  8. 1 2 Yitschaky O, Yitschaky M, Zadik Y (May 2011). "Case report on trial: Do you, Doctor, swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?" (PDF). J Med Case Rep. 5 (1): 179. doi: 10.1186/1752-1947-5-179 . PMC   3113995 . PMID   21569508.
  9. ↑ "The CARE Guidelines: Consensus-based Clinical Case Reporting Guideline Development". The EQUATOR Network. Retrieved 2014-05-28.
  10. ↑ Riley, David S.; Barber, Melissa S.; Kienle, Gunver S.; Aronson, Jeffrey K.; von Schoen-Angerer, Tido; Tugwell, Peter; Kiene, Helmut; Helfand, Mark; Altman, Douglas G. (September 2017). "CARE guidelines for case reports: explanation and elaboration document". Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 89: 218–235. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.04.026. PMID   28529185. S2CID   205846029.
  11. 1 2 Rison, Richard A.; Shepphird, Jennifer Kelly; Kidd, Michael R. (2017-07-22). "How to choose the best journal for your case report". Journal of Medical Case Reports. 11 (1): 198. doi: 10.1186/s13256-017-1351-y . ISSN   1752-1947. PMC   5522590 . PMID   28732524.
  12. ↑ Akers, Katherine G. (2016-11-21). "New journals for publishing medical case reports". Journal of the Medical Library Association. 104 (2): 146–149. doi:10.5195/jmla.2016.62. ISSN   1558-9439. PMC   4816468 . PMID   27076803.
  13. ↑ Bognolo, G. (2004). "Grand Rounds". BMJ: British Medical Journal. 328 (7435): 353. doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7435.353-a. PMC   338152 .
  14. ↑ "Online open peer-reviewed case report journal". Grand Rounds.
  15. ↑ "Treatment and Side Effect Information". Patients Like You.
  16. ↑ "Share and Find Treatment Reviews for Medical Conditions". Treatment Report. Archived from the original on 2016-07-29.
  17. ↑ "Cardiac transplantation: since the first case report". Grand Rounds. Archived from the original on 2010-10-23.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.