CaReL Guidelines: A Consensus-Based Guideline on Case Reports and Literature Review (CaReL)

Main Article Content

Sakshi Prasad
Mahmoud Nassar
Ahmed Y. Azzam
Francisco García-Muro-San José
Mahnaz Jamee
Rim Kasem Ali Sliman
Giuseppe Evola
Ayman M. Mustafa
Hiwa O. Abdullah
Berun A. Abdalla
Shvan H. Mohammed
Fahmi H. Kakamad
Abdulwahid M. Salih
Nicola Tartaglia
Giovanna Pavone
Giuliano D’Onghia
Silviu Daniel Preda
Sofia Maraki
Ivona Butorac Ahel
Carlo Pietro Campobasso
Jacek K. Szymański
Andrea Bottari
Laura Fortuna
Stefano Giuseppe Caraffi
Ilaria Mormile
Gaetano Riemma
Emmanuel Roilides
Serena Xodo
Nives Pecina-Slaus
Matteo Paganini
Giacomo Brisca
Giorgia Perniola
Matteo Frigerio
Rok Civljak
Salvatore Sardo
Marco Colizzi
Luminita Iliuta
Eric Chun-Pu Chu
Tummidi Santosh
Ahmed El Shamarka
Hossam Tharwat Ali
Reşat Özaras
Alparslan Dilsiz
Baha’eddin A. Muhsen
Maysa Al-Hussaini
Ricardo Grillo
G.V. Oliveira
Neil H. Riordan
Ishag Adam
Abdulqadir J. Nashwan
Nima Rezaei
Rasoul Goli
Abhigan Babu Shrestha
Sajina Shrestha
Jairo Corchuelo-Ojeda
Imen Ben Ismail
Umaharan Thamotharampillai

Keywords

Case report , Literature review , CaReL guideline , Case study, Scholarly community

Abstract

Introduction


Clinical case reports enrich medical literature by presenting rare medical issues. However, case reports that do not adhere to a standard template often lack rigor and limit their usefulness in clinical guidance. Several guidelines for reporting case reports have been structured, while further improvements are still required. The current guideline (CaReL) aims to enhance the comprehensiveness of case reports by integrating a detailed literature review.


Methods


In total, 56 researchers were selected based on specific publication criteria for structuring the guidelines. The guideline development was based on a two-step consensus process, including a literature review and survey distribution. Responses underwent scrutiny to ensure reliability and validity. Content validity was assessed, with revisions made to achieve a content validity index exceeding 0.78.  The guideline's feasibility and effectiveness were evaluated by pilot testing, with feedback incorporated for finalization, ensuring the robustness and practicality of the guideline.


Results


The CaReL guidelines can improve the quality of case reports through a comprehensive checklist with an increased emphasis on literature review. In addition to traditional sections with their subsections discussed in previous guidelines, the checklist also focuses on literature review in the abstract and discussion.


Conclusion


The CaReL guidelines offer a comprehensive structure for documenting case reports. They highlight the importance of incorporating a literature review to better introduce medical issues to readers and scholars and embedding reported cases into the current scientific state of the art. Implementing these guidelines can promote knowledge sharing and improve patient care

Abstract 147 | PDF Downloads 29 Supplementary Downloads 13

References

1. Cabán-Martinez AJ, García-Beltrán WF. Advancing medicine one research note at a time: the educational value in clinical case reports. BMC research notes. 2012; 5:1-3. doi:10.1186/1756-0500-5-293
2. Nissen T, Wynn R. The recent history of the clinical case report: a narrative review. JRSM short reports. 2012;3(12):1-5. doi:10.1258/shorts.2012.012046
3. Osler W. The Quotable Osler. ACP Press; 2008.
4. Kidd M, Hubbard C. Introducing journal of medical case reports. Journal of Medical Case Reports. 2007; 1:1-2. doi:10.1186/1752-1947-1-1
5. Richason TP, Paulson SM, Lowenstein SR, Heard KJ. Case reports describing treatments in the emergency medicine literature: missing and misleading information. BMC emergency medicine. 2009; 9:1-7. doi:10.1186/1471-227X-9-10
6. Hauben M, Aronson JK. Gold standards in pharmacovigilance: the use of definitive anecdotal reports of adverse drug reactions as pure gold and high-grade ore. Drug Safety. 2007; 30:645-55. doi:10.2165/00002018-200730080-00001
7. Riley D. Case reports in the era of clinical trials. Global Advances in Health and Medicine. 2013;2(2):10-1. doi:10.7453/gahmj.2013.012
8. Moses LE. The series of consecutive cases as a device for assessing outcomes of intervention. New England Journal of Medicine. 1984;311(11):705-10. doi:10.1056/NEJM198409133111104
9. Muhialdeen AS, Ahmed JO, Baba HO, Abdullah IY, Hassan HA, Najar KA, et al. Kscien’s List; A New Strategy to Discourage Predatory Journals and Publishers (Second Version). Barw Medical Journal.2023;1(1):24-26. doi:10.58742/bmj.v1i1.14
10. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Prisma Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. International journal of surgery. 2010;8(5):336-41. doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007
11. Von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, Strobe Initiative. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. International journal of surgery. 2014;12(12):1495-9. doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.07.013
12. Turner L, Shamseer L, Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D. Does use of the CONSORT Statement impact the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials published in medical journals? A Cochrane review a. Systematic reviews. 2012; 1:1-7. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-1-60
13. Kelly W, Arellano F, Barnes J, Bergman U, Edwards R, Fernandez A, Freedman S, Goldsmith D, Huang K, Jones J, McLeay R. Guidelines for submitting adverse event reports for publication. Therapie. 2009;64(4):289-94. doi:10.2515/therapie/2009041
14. Gagnier JJ, Kienle G, Altman DG, Moher D, Sox H, Riley D. The CARE guidelines: consensus-based clinical case reporting guideline development. Global advances in health and medicine. 2013;2(5):38-43. doi:10.7453/gahmj.2013.008
15. Sohrabi C, Mathew G, Maria N, Kerwan A, Franchi T, Agha RA; Collaborators. The SCARE 2023 guideline: updating consensus Surgical CAse REport (SCARE) guidelines. Int J Surg. 2023;109(5):1136-1140. doi:10.1097/JS9.0000000000000373
16. Moher D, Schulz KF, Simera I, Altman DG. Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS medicine. 2010;7(2): e1000217. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000217
17. Polit DF, Beck CT. The content validity index: are you sure you know what's being reported? Critique and recommendations. Research in nursing & health. 2006;29(5):489-97. doi:10.1002/nur.20147
18. Catala-Lopez F, Alonso-Arroyo A, Page MJ, Hutton B, Ridao M, Tabarés-Seisdedos R, Aleixandre-Benavent R, Moher D. Reporting guidelines for health research: protocol for a cross-sectional analysis of the EQUATOR Network Library. BMJ open. 2019;9(3): e022769. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022769
19. Ioannidis JP. How to make more published research true. PLoS Med. 2014;11(10):e1001747. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001747
20. Hirst A, Altman DG. Are peer reviewers encouraged to use reporting guidelines? A survey of 116 health research journals. PloS one. 2012;7(4): e35621. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0035621
No Related Submission Found