How about the reporting quality of case reports in nursing field?

Abstract

BACKGROUNDAs a significantly important part of clinical practice, the professional nursing process can be advanced in many ways. Despite the fact that case reports are regarded to be of a lower quality grade in the hierarchy of evidence, one of the principles of evidence-based medicine is that decision-making should be based on a systematic summary of evidence. However, the evidence on the reporting characteristics of case reports in the nursing field is deficient.AIMTo use the CARE guidelines to assess reporting quality and factors influencing the quality of case reports in the nursing field.METHODSNursing science citation indexed (SCI-indexed) journals were identified from the professional website. Each of the identified journals was searched on their website for articles published before December 2017. Twenty-one sub-items on the CARE checklist were recorded as “YES”, “PARTLY”, or “NO” according to information reported by the included studies. The responses were assigned corresponding scores of 1, 0.5, and 0, respectively. The overall score was the sum of the 21 sub-items and was defined as “high” (more than 15), “medium” (10.5 to 14.5), and “low” (less than 10). The means, standard deviations, odds ratios (OR), and the associated 95% confidence interval (CI) were determined using Stata 12.0 software.RESULTSUltimately, 184 case reports from 16 SCI-indexed journals were identified, with overall scores ranging from 6.5 to 18 (mean = 13.6 ± 2.3). Of the included case reports, 10.3% were regarded low-quality, 52.7% were considered middle-quality, and 37% were regarded high-quality. There were statistical differences in the mean overall scores of the included case reports with funding versus those without funding (14.2 ± 1.7 vs 13.6 ± 2.4, respectively; P = 0.4456) and journal impact factor < 1.8 versus impact factor ≥ 1.8 (13.3 ± 2.3 vs 13.6 ± 2.4, respectively; P = 0.4977). Five items from the CARE guidelines, 5a (Patient), 6 (Clinical findings), 8c (Diagnostic reasoning), 9 (Therapeutic intervention), and 11d (The main take-away lessons) were well-reported (Reporting rate more than 90%) in most of the included case reports. However, only three items, 2 (Keywords, OR = 0.42, 95%CI: 0.19-0.92, P = 0.03), 4 (Introduction, OR = 0.35, 95%CI: 0.15-0.83, P = 0.017), and 11b (The relevant medical literature, OR = 0.19, 95%CI: 0.06-0.56, P = 0.003) were considered better-reported after the CARE guidelines published in 2013.CONCLUSIONThe reporting quality of case reports in the nursing field apparently has not improved since the publication of the CARE guidelines.

Unveiling the Incidence and Graft Survival Rate in Kidney Transplant Recipients With De Novo Thrombotic Microangiopathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…The responses were assigned scores of 1, 0.5, and 0, respectively. The overall score was the sum of the 21 sub-items and was defined as “high” (more than 15), “medium” (10.5–14.5), and “low” (less than 10) [ 32 ]. These quality assessments were judged independently by two reviewers (S-HW and C-YHs), and any conflict was discussed with the third reviewer (C-YHu).…”

Quality assessment of case reports in high‐impact urology journals using SCARE guideline

“… 2 , 3 In recent years, the number of case reports published in medical journals has significantly increased and over 2 million case reports are currently recorded in PubMed indexed journals. 4 Urology is no exception to this fact and such case reports have an important role in introducing new diseases and their natural history, introducing rare diseases or rare presentations of a disease, investigation and treatment of rare diseases, as well as reporting unique surgical complications and their management. 2 , 5 Moreover, a growing number of case reports in urology journals have led to the creation and launch of several international, peer‐reviewed journals that explicitly publish case reports, for example, Urology Case Reports, International Journal of Urology (IJU) Case Reports, Case Reports in Urology, and Journal of Endourology Case Reports.…”

Genetic mutations associated with sensitivity to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in metastatic colon cancer: A case report and review of literature

“…We then summarize the current best evidence of genes related to CLM through a systematic review of the literature to guide future research on predictors of the effectiveness of and sensitivity to XELOX and Bevacizumab treatment and to facilitate better clinical decision-making. This work was carried out according to the Cooperative for American Relief Everywhere (CARE) criteria[ 14 ], which is proven to improve the quality of reporting[ 15 , 16 ].…”