MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984516794 · doi:10.4103/0301-4738.67038

The significance of case reports in biomedical publication

2010· editorial· en· W1984516794 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
BarunKumar Nayak

Bibliographic record

VenueIndian Journal of Ophthalmology · 2010
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical studies and practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineThalidomidePromotion (chess)Clinical trialFood and drug administrationFamily medicinePolitical scienceMedical emergencyPathologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Publication in a peer-reviewed journal may be a hobby for some, but it has become a necessity for many due to the new guidelines of Medical Council of India (MCI) for promotion of teachers.[1] Though very often full fledged research is constrained by logistics, clinicians encounter unique cases throughout their practice. Out of the many categories published in peer-reviewed journals, “case reports” are the easiest way to get an article accepted considering that the authors are fully aware of the nitty-gritty of the publication process. This editorial emphasizes the key issues in consideration for accepting a case report for publication. This knowledge will be handy at the time of preparing the manuscript for case reports. Case reports form an important aspect of publication. They describe important scientific observations which are missed or go undetected in clinical trials. At times rare adverse events can be identified only through case reports. For detecting an event which occurs in 1 in more than 1000 patients, one has to plan a case-control study or cohort study of more than 3000 subjects, which is not practical. It was a case report which linked US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved anorexic agents (fenfluramine and dexfenfluramine) with pulmonary hypertension. This triggered trials evaluating the incidence, mechanism, and risk factor for pulmonary hypertension and finally led to the withdrawal of the drug from the market.[2] The teratogenic effect of thalidomide was also identified through a case report of phocomelia. Sometimes case reports are the first line of evidence for new therapies, as was seen in the role of dapsone in Behcet’s disease[3] or steroids in pemphigus vulgaris.[4] The efficacy of physostigmine in myasthenia gravis was established on the basis of a case report.[5] It is however very difficult to conduct trials for very rare disease or rare indications. An obvious difficulty in recruiting a sizable number of patients to make a powerful study is faced by the author. Furthermore, pharmaceutical companies do not show willingness to sponsor such trials as the potential for revenue is expected to be minimal. Off-label use of drugs is also established by case reports. Thalidomide is an extreme example of this. Its off-label indications are many, some of which were later confirmed by randomized trials. The cycle of evidence-based medicine is complex. The value of a good case report cannot be undermined. Although in the hierarchy of evidence-based medicine, case reports do not top the list, the hypothesis generated from it is appealing, and can lead to physiological studies followed by clinical trials. The outcome of such clinical trials after favorable interpretation in a clinical context can be incorporated in clinical practice. For a case report to be highly significant, the observations have to be unique and new, the documentation thorough, and the hypothesis logical. The development of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), the deadly monster of today, started with a case report of Kaposi’s sarcoma in a young homosexual man published almost 40 years ago.[6] Twenty-four randomization controlled trials were initiated out of the 103 case reports published in the Lancet within the next 5 years.[7] This confirms that case reports cannot be ignored. Case reports have many limitations as well. Sometimes they can raise false alarms. Debendox/Bendectin a combination drug including pyridoxine and doxylamine succinate, was withdrawn from the US market based on case reports citing malformations as it was used to cure morning sickness by pregnant women.[7] However, the drug remained in use in Canada and it did not prove to be teratogenic. Case reports are also subject to bias as 90% report successes as against 10% reporting failures.[8] The methodology of case reports cannot be robust. Most of the once popular but now discarded therapies are based on case reports. Although the readability is high, case reports are not favored by most editors and journals as they are considered less citable articles and do not help in increasing the “impact factor” of the journal. While certain journals do not publish case reports at all, there are journals, which publish only case reports. The Indian Journal of Ophthalmology encourages publication of all types of articles.[9] Just a rare presentation of a case does not justify publication. Editors are always on the lookout to give a new message, which could be in the form of a presentation, management, an outcome, a complication, or an unexplored aspect. The criteria for publishable case reports have been extensively enumerated by Cohen.[2] If the case that you want to report fulfills any criterion out of the extensive list provided, you must think of publishing the particular case at hand. Cohen[2] has also provided elaborate guidelines for writing case reports which must be read by all before writing a case report to increase the chances of acceptance of their report. Case reports are beneficial for authors too. For beginners, a case report provides a learning opportunity in the practice of scientific writing. However, it should be kept in mind that though they are easy to write, they should not be taken lightly. A quick peep into the review process and the guidelines that a reviewer follows will give you some useful hints in writing a good case report. The introduction section should clearly and adequately explain the rationale for publication. All statements and claims should be substantiated by references. Introduction should be prepared like that of a lawyer defending/pleading for justification of publication supported by the available literature. It should be so strong that the editor should have no choice but to be convinced regarding the importance of the paper. The case description should be adequate, brief, and clear. The results of the investigations should be properly described and the results of less common laboratory investigations should be accompanied by normal values. Above all, it has to be documented properly and completely. The authors must also remember to protect the identity of the patients in photos and all imaging, not forgetting to obtain a no-objection letter from them before publication. Lastly, one should keep in mind that the editors expect affirmative answers on the following questions from the reviewer. (i) Is there adequate evidence to support the author’s diagnosis? (ii) Is there adequate evidence to support the author’s recommendation? (iii) Are other plausible explanations considered and refuted? (iv) Are the implications and relevance of the case discussed? (v) Do the authors indicate direction, for future investigations or management of similar cases? (vi) Is a hypothesis generated? The value of a case report can be judged by considering the following five aspects: Documentation Uniqueness Educational value Objectivity Interpretation An elaborate scoring system of 0–2 for each of the above aspects has been well described by Pierson.[10] Out of a cumulative score of 0–10, a case report scoring 9 or 10 points can be considered as a valuable addition to the literature. And while a score of 6–8 should be cautiously interpreted, articles with a score of 5 or less should be rejected. The publishable case reports should be thoroughly investigated, properly managed, and meticulously documented. It should be written well highlighting the unique features with a logical generation of a hypothesis. I am sure this editorial will be helpful in preparing the manuscript for case reports which the editors will find difficult to reject.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.141
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.141
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0110.007
Science and technology studies0.0060.012
Scholarly communication0.0130.020
Open science0.0050.009
Research integrity0.0210.018
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.007

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.361 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreEditorial

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndian Journal of OphthalmologySame topicPharmaceutical studies and practicesFrench-language works237,207