Completeness of reporting of case reports in high‐impact medical journals

Abstract

Introduction Case reports represent a relevant, timely and important study design in advancing medical scientific knowledge. They allow integration between clinical practice and clinical epidemiology. We aimed to assess the completeness of reporting (COR) of case reports published in high‐impact journals. We assessed the COR of case reports using the CARE guidelines. Materials and methods We selected three high‐impact journals and one journal specialized in publishing case reports, in which we included all published case reports from July to December 2017. Median COR score was calculated per study, and CORs were compared between journals with and without endorsement of CARE guidelines. Results One hundred and fourteen case reports were included. Overall median COR was 81%, IQR [63%‐96%]. Sections with the highest COR (84%‐100%) were patient information, clinical findings, therapeutic intervention, follow‐up and outcomes, discussion and informed consent. Sections with the lowest COR were title, keywords, timeline and patient perspective (2%‐34%). COR was higher in journals endorsing in comparison to those not endorsing CARE guidelines (77% vs 65%), respectively, median difference = −12% 95% CI [−16% to −7%]. Discussion Overall completeness of case reports in included journals is high especially for CARE endorsing and dedicated journals but reporting of some items could be improved. Ongoing and future evaluations of endorsement status of reporting guidelines in medical journals should be assessed to improve completeness and reduce waste of clinical research, including case reports.

Completeness of reporting for COVID-19 case reports, January to April 2020: a meta-epidemiologic study

“…We presented all data as means and standard deviations (SDs). According to a previous study, 12 the COR score was calculated using the following equation:…”

“…To evaluate a difference in the mean COR scores with the mean COR score of 75% from the literature, 12 we used a 1-sample t test. To evaluate a difference in the mean COR scores with the variables of CARE endorsement and openaccess status, we used an independent-samples t test.…”

“…Sixth, we did not independently verify the validity of the data from the databases used for our secondary outcome measures. Finally, the use of the CARE guideline to assess COR, though previously reported, [12][13][14]16 imputed a degree of subjectivity, as the recommendations do not specify the depth or explicitness of completeness required for each topic. Nevertheless, the overall interrater agreement of the COR scores suggests good reliability between the 2 raters.…”

“…10 Several studies across a variety of domains and journals have evaluated COR for case reports by calculating a composite score of the number of CARE checklist items that were complete. [12][13][14][15][16] Our objective was to determine the COR of case reports related to COVID-19. We hypothesized that the overall COR According to the original CARE guideline publication, a case report is a "detailed narrative that describes, for medical, scientific, or educational purposes, a medical problem experienced by one or several patients."…”

“…11 To operationalize this definition, we considered "case reports" as any publications with clinical information from a single patient, which included imaging reports, problem-solving cases and correspondence. Similar to a previous study, 12 we included only case reports with clinical data from only 1 patient, as the CARE checklist does not allow for evaluation of clinical information from more than 1 patient.…”