medical case report literature review

• Open access
• Published: 06 April 2016

How to review a case report

• Rakesh Garg 1 ,
• Shaheen E. Lakhan 2 &
• Ananda K. Dhanasekaran 3  

Journal of Medical Case Reports volume  10 , Article number:  88 ( 2016 ) Cite this article

74k Accesses

19 Citations

4 Altmetric

Metrics details

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Sharing individual patient experiences with clinical colleagues is an essential component of learning from each other. This sharing of information may be made global by reporting in a scientific journal. In medicine, patient management decisions are generally based on the evidence available for use of a particular investigation or technology [ 1 ]. The hierarchical rank of the evidence signifies the probability of bias. The higher up the hierarchy, the better its reliability and thus its clinical acceptance (Table  1 ). Though case reports remain lowest in the hierarchy of evidence, with meta-analysis representing the highest level, they nevertheless constitute important information with regard to rare events and may be considered as anecdotal evidence [ 2 ] (Table  1 ). Case reports may stimulate the generation of new hypotheses, and thus may support the emergence of new research.

The definition of a case report or a case series is not well defined in the literature and has been defined variously by different journals and authors. However, the basic definition of a case report is the detailed report of an individual including aspects like exposure, symptoms, signs, intervention, and outcome. It has been suggested that a report with more than four cases be called a case series and those with fewer than four a case report [ 3 ]. A case series is descriptive in design. Other authors describe “a collection of patients” as a case series and “a few patients” as a case report [ 4 ]. We suggest that should more than one case be reported, it may be defined as a case series—a concept proposed by other authors [ 5 ].

The importance of case reports

A case report may describe an unusual etiology, an unusual or unknown disorder, a challenging differential diagnosis, an unusual setting for care, information that can not be reproduced due to ethical reasons, unusual or puzzling clinical features, improved or unique technical procedures, unusual interactions, rare or novel adverse reactions to care, or new insight into the pathogenesis of disease [ 6 , 7 ]. In recent years, the publication of case reports has been given low priority by many high impact factor journals. However, the need for reporting such events remains. There are some journals dedicated purely to case reports, such as the Journal of Medical Case Reports , emphasizing their importance in modern literature. In the past, isolated case reports have led to significant advancements in patient care. For example, case reports concerning pulmonary hypertension and anorexic agents led to further trials and the identification of the mechanism and risk factors associated with these agents [ 2 , 8 ].

Reporting and publishing requirements

The reporting of cases varies for different journals. The authors need to follow the instructions for the intended publication. Owing to significant variability, it would be difficult to have uniform publication guidelines for case reports. A checklist called the CARE guidelines is useful for authors writing case reports [ 9 , 10 ]. However, it would be universally prudent to include a title, keywords, abstract, introduction, patient information, clinical findings, timeline, diagnostic assessment, therapeutic interventions, follow-up and outcomes, discussion, patient perspective, and informed consent.

Peer review process

The peer review process is an essential part of ethical and scientific writing. Peer review ultimately helps improve articles by providing valuable feedback to the author and helps editors make a decision regarding publication. The peer reviewer should provide unbiased, constructive feedback regarding the manuscript. They may also highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the report. When reviewing an article, it is prudent to read the entire manuscript first to understand the overall content and message. The reviewer than may read section-wise and provide comments to the authors and editorial team accordingly. The reviewer needs to consider the following important points when reviewing a case for possible publication [ 8 , 9 ] (summarized in Table  2 ).

Novelty remains the foremost important aspect of a case. The case report should introduce novel aspects of patient evaluation, investigation, treatment, or any other aspect related to patient care. The relevant information becomes a hypothesis generator for further study. The novelty may at times be balanced with some important information like severe adverse effects, even if they have been reported earlier. Reporting adverse events remains important so that information on cumulative adverse effects can be gathered globally, which helps in preparing a policy or guideline or a warning note for its use in patients. The data related to adverse effects include not only the impact but also the number of patients affected. This becomes more important for serious adverse effects. In the absence of an international registry for adverse effects, published case reports are important pieces of information. Owing to ethical concerns, formal evaluation may not be feasible in the format of prospective study.

Essential description

The case needs to have all essential details to allow a useful conclusion to emerge. For example, if a case is being reported for hemodynamic variability due to a drug, then the drug dose and timing along with timed vital signs need to be described.

Authenticity and genuineness

Honesty remains the most important basic principle of all publications. This remains a primary responsibility of the authors. However, if there is any doubt, reviewers may seek clarification. This doubt may result from some discordance in the case description. At times, a lack of correlation between the figures and description may act as “red flags.” For instance, authors may discuss a technique for dealing with a difficult airway, but the figure is of a normal-appearing airway. Another example would be where the data and figure do not correlate in a hemodynamic response related to a drug or a technique, with the graphical picture or screenshot of hemodynamics acting as an alert sign. Such cause for concern may be communicated in confidence to the editor.

Ethical or competing interests

Ethical issues need to be cautiously interpreted and communicated. The unethical use of a drug or device is not desirable and often unworthy of publication. This may relate to the route or dose of the drug administered. The off-label use of drugs where known side effects are greater than potential benefit needs to be discouraged and remains an example of unethical use. This use may be related to the drug dose, particularly when the drug dose exceeds the routine recommended dose, or to the route of administration. As an example, the maximal dose of acetaminophen (paracetamol) is 4g/day, and if an author reports exceeding this dose, it should be noted why a greater than recommended dose was used. Ultimately, the use of a drug or its route of administration needs to be justified in the manuscript. The reviewers need to serve as content experts regarding the drugs and other technologies used in the case. A literature search by the reviewer provides the data to comment on this aspect.

Competing interests (or conflicts of interest) are concerns that interfere or potentially interfere with presentation, review, or publication. They must be declared by the authors. Conflicts can relate to patient-related professional attributes (like the use of a particular procedure, drug, or instrument) being affected by some secondary gains (financial, non-financial, professional, personal). Financial conflict may be related to ownership, paid consultancy, patents, grants, honoraria, and gifts. Non-financial conflicts may be related to memberships, relationships, appearance as an expert witness, or personal convictions. At times, the conflict may be related to the author’s relationship with an organization or another person. A conflict may influence the interpretation of the outcome in an inappropriate and unscientific manner. Although conflicts may not be totally abolished, they must be disclosed when they reasonably exist. This disclosure should include information such as funding sources, present membership, and patents pending. Reviewers should cautiously interpret any potential bias regarding the outcome of the case based on the reported conflicts. This is essential for transparent reporting of research. At times, competing interests may be discovered by a reviewer and should be included in comments to the editorial team. Such conflicts may again be ascertained when the reviewer reviews the literature during the peer review process. The reviewer should also disclose their own conflicts related to the manuscript review when sending their report to the editorial team.

Impact on clinical practice

This is an important aspect for the final decision of whether to publish a case report. The main thrust or carry-home message needs to be emphasized clearly. It needs to be elaborated upon in concluding remarks.

Patient anonymity, consent, and ethical approval

When reviewing the manuscript of a case report, reviewers should ensure that the patient’s anonymity and confidentiality is protected. The reviewers should check that patient identifiers have been removed or masked from all aspects of the manuscript, whether in writing or within photograph. Identifiers can include things like the name of the patient, geographical location, date of birth, phone numbers, email of the patient, medical record numbers, or biometric identifiers. Utmost care needs to be taken to provide full anonymity for the patient.

Consent is required to participate in research, receive a certain treatment, and publish identifiable details. These consents are for different purposes and need to be explained separately to the patient. A patient’s consent to participate in the research or for use of the drug may not extend to consent for publication. All these aspects of consent must be explained to the patient, written explicitly in the patient’s own language, understood by the patient, and signed by the patient. For the purpose of the case, the patient must understand and consent for any new technique or drug (its dose, route, and timing) being used. In the case of a drug being used for a non-standard indication or route, consent for use must also be described. Patient consent is essential for the publication of a case if patient body parts are displayed in the article. This also includes any identifiers that can reveal the identity of the patient, such as the patient’s hospital identification number, address, and any other unique identifier. In situations where revealing the patient’s identity cannot be fully avoided, for example if the report requires an image of an identifiable body part like the face, then this should be explained to the patient, the image shown to them, and consent taken. Should the patient die, then consent must be obtained from next of kin or legal representative.

With case series, securing individual patient consent is advised and preferable. The authors may also need institutional review board (IRB) approval to publish a case series. IRBs can waive the need for consent if a study is conducted retrospectively and data are collected from patient notes for the purpose of research, usually in an anonymized way. However, wherever possible, individual patient consent is preferable, even for a retrospective study. Consent is mandatory for any prospective data collection for the purpose of publication as a case series. Consent and/or IRB approval must be disclosed in the case report and reasons for not obtaining individual consent may be described, if applicable.

There may be situations in which publishing patient details without their consent is justified, but this is a decision that should be made by the journal editor, who may decide to discuss the case with the Committee on Publication Ethics. Reviewers need to emphasize the issue to the editor when submitting their comments.

Manuscript writing

The CARE guidelines provide a framework that supports transparency and accuracy in the publication of case reports and the reporting of information from patient encounters. The acronym CARE was created from CA (the first two letters in “case”) and RE (the first two letters in “reports”). The initial CARE tools are the CARE checklist and the Case Report Writing Templates. These tools support the writing of case reports and provide data that inform clinical practice guidelines and provide early signals of effectiveness, harms, and cost [ 10 ].

The presentation of the case and its interpretation should be comprehensive and related. The various components of the manuscript should have sufficient information for understanding the key message of the case. The reviewer needs to comment on the relevant components of the manuscript. The reviewer should ascertain that the title of the case manuscript is relevant and includes keywords related to the case. The title should be short, descriptive, and interesting. The abstract should be brief, without any abbreviations, and include keywords. It is preferable to use Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) keywords. Reviewers must ensure that the introduction emphasizes the context of the case and describes the relevance and its importance in a concise and comprehensive manner. The case description should be complete and should follow basic rules of medical communication. The details regarding patient history, physical examination, investigations, differential diagnosis, management, and outcome should be described in chronological order. If repeated observations are present, then they may be tabulated. The use of graphs and figures helps the readers to better understand the case. Interpretation or inferences based on the outcomes should be avoided in this section and should be considered a part of the discussion. The discussion should highlight important aspects of the case, with its interpretation within the context of the available literature. References should be formatted as per the journal style. They should be complete and preferably of recent publications.

Reviewer responsibility

The reviewer’s remarks are essential not only for the editorial team but also for authors. A good peer review requires honesty, sincerity, and punctuality. Even if a manuscript is rejected, the authors should receive learning points from peer review commentary. The best way to review a manuscript is to read the manuscript in full for a gross overview and develop general comments. Thereafter, the reviewer should address each section of the manuscript separately and precisely. This may be done after a literature search if the reviewer needs to substantiate his/her commentary.

Constructive criticism

The reviewer’s remarks should be constructive to help the authors improve the manuscript for further consideration. If the manuscript is rejected, the authors should have a clear indication for the rejection. The remarks may be grouped as major and minor comments. Major comments likely suggest changes to the whole presentation, changing the primary aim of the case report, or adding images. Minor comments may include grammatical errors or getting references for a statement. The editorial team must be able to justify their decision on whether or not to accept an article for publication, often by citing peer review feedback. It is also good style to tabulate a list of the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript.

Fixed time for review

Reviewer remarks should be submitted within a specified timeframe. If any delay is expected, it should be communicated to the editorial team. Reviewers should not rush to submit feedback without sufficient time to adequately review the paper and perform any necessary literature searches. Should a reviewer be unable to submit the review within the specified timeframe, they should reply to the review invitation to decline at their earliest convenience. If, after accepting a review invitation, the reviewer realizes they do not have time to perform the review, this must be communicated to the editorial team.

Conflict of interest

The reviewer’s conflicts of interest should be included along with the review. The conflicts may be related to the contents of the case, drugs, or devices pertaining to the case; the author(s); or the affiliated institution(s) of the author(s).

Lack of expertise

The reviewer may decline to review the manuscript if they think the topic is out of their area of expertise. If, after accepting an invitation to review, the reviewer realizes they are unable to review the manuscript owing to a lack of expertise in that particular field, they should disclose the fact to the editorial team.

Confidentiality

The reviewer should keep the manuscript confidential and should not use the contents of the unpublished manuscript in any form. Discussing the manuscript among colleagues or any scientific forum or meetings is inappropriate.

Review of revised manuscript

At times, a manuscript is sent for re-review to the reviewer. The reviewer should read the revised manuscript, the author’s response to the previous round of peer review, and the editorial comments. Sometimes, the authors may disagree with the reviewer’s remarks. This issue needs to be elaborated on and communicated with the editor. The reviewer should support their views with appropriate literature references. If the authors justify their reason for disagreeing with the viewer, then their argument should be considered evidence-based. However, if the reviewer still requests the revision, this may be politely communicated to the author and editor with justification for the same. In response to reviewers remarks, authors may not agree fully and provide certain suggestion in the form of clarification related to reviewers remarks. The reviewers should take these clarifications judiciously and comment accordingly with the intent of improving the manuscript further.

Peer reviewers have a significant role in the dissemination of scientific literature. They act as gatekeepers for science before it is released to society. Their sincerity and dedication is paramount to the success of any journal. The reviewers should follow a scientific and justifiable methodology for reviewing a case report for possible publication. Their comments should be constructive for the overall improvement of the manuscript and aid the editorial team in making a decision on publication. We hope this article will help reviewers to perform their important role in the best way possible. We send our best wishes to the reviewer community and, for those who are inspired to become reviewers after reading this article, our warm welcome to the reviewers’ club.

Burns PB, Rohrich RJ, Chung KC. The levels of evidence and their role in evidence-based medicine. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128:305–10.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Green BN, Johnson CD. How to write a case report for publication. J Chiropr Med. 2006;5:72–82.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Abu-Zidan FM, Abbas AK, Hefny AF. Clinical “case series”: a concept analysis. Afr Health Sci. 2012;12:557–62.

CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Porta M, editor. A dictionary of epidemiology/edited for the International Epidemiological Association. 5th ed. UK: Oxford University Press; 2008. p. 33.

Medical Research Council of South Africa. Evidence-based medicine. 2016. http://www.mrc.ac.za/healthsystems/sai.htm . Accessed on 1 Nov 2015.

Cohen H. How to write a patient case report. Am J Health-Syst Pharm. 2006;63:1888–92.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Roberts LW, Coverdale J, Edenharder K, Louie A. How to review a manuscript: a “down-to-earth” approach. Acad Psychiatry. 2004;28:81–7.

Rutowski JL, Cairone JV. How to review scientific manuscripts and clinical case reports for Journal of Oral Implantology. J Oral Implantol. 2009;35:310–4.

Article   Google Scholar  

Jabs DA. Improving the reporting of clinical case series. Am J Ophthalmol. 2005;139:900–5.

Gagnier JJ, Kienle G, Altman DG, Moher D, Sox H, Riley D; CARE Group. The CARE guidelines: consensus-based clinical case reporting guideline development. BMJ Case Reports. 2013; doi: 10.1136/bcr-2013-201554 .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Anaesthesiology, Pain and Palliative Care, DR BRAIRCH, AIIMS, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi, 110029, India

Rakesh Garg

Neurology and Medical Education, California University of Science and Medicine - School of Medicine, Colton, CA, USA

Shaheen E. Lakhan

Sandwell & West Birmingham Hospitals, NHS Trust, Birmingham, UK

Ananda K. Dhanasekaran

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rakesh Garg .

Additional information

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Garg, R., Lakhan, S.E. & Dhanasekaran, A.K. How to review a case report. J Med Case Reports 10 , 88 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13256-016-0853-3

Download citation

Received : 27 August 2015

Accepted : 25 February 2016

Published : 06 April 2016

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13256-016-0853-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Journal of Medical Case Reports

ISSN: 1752-1947

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

An official website of the United States government

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Advanced Search
• Journal List

A guide to writing case reports for the Journal of Medical Case Reports and BioMed Central Research Notes

Richard a rison.

• Author information
• Article notes
• Copyright and License information

Corresponding author.

Received 2013 Aug 30; Accepted 2013 Oct 7; Collection date 2013.

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Case reports are a time-honored, important, integral, and accepted part of the medical literature. Both the Journal of Medical Case Reports and the Case Report section of BioMed Central Research Notes are committed to case report publication, and each have different criteria. Journal of Medical Case Reports was the world’s first international, PubMed-listed medical journal devoted to publishing case reports from all clinical disciplines and was launched in 2007. The Case Report section of BioMed Central Research Notes was created and began publishing case reports in 2012. Between the two of them, thousands of peer-reviewed case reports have now been published with a worldwide audience. Authors now also have Cases Database, a continually updated, freely accessible database of thousands of medical case reports from multiple publishers. This informal editorial outlines the process and mechanics of how and when to write a case report, and provides a brief look into the editorial process behind each of these complementary journals along with the author’s anecdotes in the hope of inspiring all authors (both novice and experienced) to write and continue writing case reports of all specialties. Useful hyperlinks are embedded throughout for easy and quick reference to style guidelines for both journals.

Introduction: the importance of case reports

Case reports are a time-honored tradition in the medical profession. From Hippocrates (460 B.C. to 370 B.C.), and even arguably further back since the papyrus records of ancient Egyptian medicine (c. 1600 B.C.) to modern day, physicians of all specialties have described interesting cases involving all specialties [ 1 , 2 ]. Published case reports provide essential information for optimal patient care because they can describe important scientific observations that are missed or undetected in clinical trials, and provide individual clinical insights thus expanding our knowledge base [ 3 ].

The publication of case reports has indeed become a standard lexicon of the medical literature. Examples abound. Few practicing physicians would not know for instance the significance and subsequent discovery of a disease whose first description in 1981 began with the title in the medical case report literature as: “A preliminary communication on extensively disseminated Kaposi’s sarcoma in a young homosexual man” [ 4 ]. There is no neurologist that I know who is unfamiliar with the disease whose description began in 1817 by James Parkinson (1755 to 1824) with the title “An essay on the shaking palsy.” [ 5 ].

Yes, both of the above-mentioned famous diseases (the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome and Parkinson’s disease) were first described in the case study format. The act of recording, discussion with colleagues, and publishing our clinical observations with patients remains essential to the art of medicine and patient care. As Osler once said “Always note and record the unusual…Publish it. Place it on permanent record as a short, concise note. Such communications are always of value.” [ 6 ].

But how and when should we do this? Early case reports were little more than personal communications between colleagues about unique and interesting patients seen in their respective medical practices. This anecdotal reporting has evolved into an accepted form of scholarly publication with the ability to rapidly disseminate knowledge to a broad medical audience [ 7 ] using the generally accepted format of a title, abstract, introduction (background), case presentation, discussion, conclusions, and references. Many biomedical journals publish case reports and provide authors with guidelines that provide instruction for acceptance criteria, content, and format and give advice on relevant patient case reports that merit publication [ 3 ].

There are already many well-written published articles on how and when to write a good case report (please see Recommended further reading section at the end). I will not re-invent the wheel, but within this editorial I hope to provide an informal guide on how and when to write a case report for BioMed Central (BMC), in particular the Journal of Medical Case Reports ( JMCR ) and BioMed Central Research Notes ( BMCRN ). The utility of the newly created Cases Database will also be discussed. Relevant and useful website links will be used throughout to allow the reader easy access to further information on BMC requirements. I also hope to impart to the reader a brief overview of case report editorial flow in both JMCR and BMCRN along with the complementary relationship between both journals. I will also give anecdotes of how I personally approach things.

Definitions

What exactly is a case report? From peer-reviewed journals to Wikipedia (and yes, I read Wikipedia like we all do) definitions are readily available and generally agreed upon. A simple online search shows the following definition from “thefreedictionary.com” [ 8 ]: “Case Report A report of a single case of a disease, usually with an unexpected presentation, which typically describes the findings, clinical course, and prognosis of the case, often accompanied by a review of other cases previously reported in the biomedical literature to put the reported case in context.” Wikipedia [ 9 ] has this to say: “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.” Whether one uses the above definitional references or older more classic ones [ 10 ], all are in agreement.

How to start: the patient

Things start at the bedside or in the office with the most important person involved: the patient. Patients and their stories (including from their friends, coworkers, and family) are our portal to writing the case report. Patients (both in-patients and out-patients) are assessed, we confer with colleagues, appropriate investigations then follow, and treatment if possible begins. If I encounter an in-patient on call then I follow him or her throughout his or her hospitalization and, I hope, timely discharge. The patient is then followed and reexamined in the office over the course of time to see how the clinical course evolves. I usually wait 6 months over the course of multiple visits before I actually begin to write a case report so as to allow enough time for the clinical course to play out. Of course if the patient is hospitalized with an acute and rapid illness then this time may be much shorter, but I still follow him or her with daily neurologic examinations.

Collegial discussion and the Internet: our modern day water cooler

When an interesting condition is encountered in either the hospital or the office setting, I discuss the case in person with both my local neurology colleagues and colleagues of other specialties to see if they have encountered before the clinical scenario that I am dealing with at the time. This is usually a quick face-to-face nursing station conversation. If the case is particularly challenging then I will contact my local university colleagues for their opinion (especially if an urgent transfer needs to be arranged). I then “hit the books”, or at least I used to. Nowadays I usually “hit the keyboards” which are plentiful at every hospital nursing station and in my office. Indeed, the Internet seems to have become our modern day replacement for office water cooler conversations. Since it is readily available (and free to me because I am a member of the staff) in the hospital in which I see patients and in my office, I usually start with UpToDate® [ 11 ] and then click the links to individual references. Further reading is then supplemented by both PubMed [ 12 ] (free) and Cases Database (also free) [ 13 ] (see later). If I feel that a particular patient warrants a case report, then I continue to read more and more. There are also medical list servers and medical online communities to which one can post a case with de-identified images online and petition the advice of colleagues worldwide. I use both Neurolist [ 14 ] (a membership-only service, but membership is free) and The American Academy of Neurology (AAN) for my specialty and/or subspecialties [ 15 ] (also a membership-only service, the fee of which comes out of my yearly AAN dues). Another useful list server is sermo® [ 16 ], which has free membership. Teaching grand rounds at one’s local university or hospital, poster presentations, and simple discussion with professors giving lectures at local seminars are also good (and previously “traditional”) places to start. I have always preferred an in-person encounter to discuss a case with a colleague or professor, but given the current day and age (daily workload, travel costs, time away from the office and family, and so on), I have found Internet-based discussion (keeping all patient information anonymous of course) very helpful.

The BMC series, JMCR , and BMCRN : a brief history

The BMC series is a group of open access, peer-reviewed journals that spans most areas of biological and clinical research. There are currently 65 journals in the series, including (alphabetically) BMC Anesthesiology to BMC Women’s Health. Some of these publish case reports within their respective disciplines, and some do not [ 17 ].

JMCR is an online, open access journal under BMC auspices dedicated mainly to the publication of high quality case reports, and aims to contribute to the expansion of current medical knowledge (please see specific publication criteria below). It was created and founded by Michael Kidd and colleagues in 2007 and at the time was believed to be the world’s first international medical journal devoted to publishing case reports from all clinical disciplines. In the 5 years since its launch, JMCR has published over 2000 case reports. In 2011, case reports were downloaded from the journal’s website over 1,500,000 times [ 18 ].

BMCRN is also an online, open access journal under BMC auspices publishing scientifically sound research across all fields of biology and medicine. The journal provides a home for short publications, case series, and incremental updates to previous work with the intention of reducing the loss suffered by the research community when such results remain unpublished. BMCRN began publishing case reports in 2012 and now has a dedicated section for case reports [ 19 ].

Please read on to see the complementary relationship of case reporting between the two journals, how they relate to other journals in the BMC series, and further information on editorial work flow including specific publication criteria.

Cases Database: an invaluable resource

Since the launch of JMCR in 2007 and the more recent introduction of case reports to the BMCRN , which aims to have a broader scope, BMC has acknowledged and continues to acknowledge the value of case reports to the scientific literature. To further strengthen this commitment, BMC in conjunction with Michael Kidd have developed the invaluable new resource of Cases Database, a continually updated, freely accessible database of thousands of medical case reports from multiple other publishers, including Springer, British Medical Journal, and PubMed Central. By aggregating case reports and facilitating comparison, Cases Database provides a simple resource to clinicians, researchers, regulators and patients to explore content and identify emerging trends [ 20 ].

http://www.casesdatabase.com/

I find Cases Database indispensable when I research a particular patient’s condition. It is very helpful in seeing if a particular condition has been reported before and what treatment the authors have performed. It is an invaluable resource which can be used to check and see if previous cases have been reported before and how other authors have managed their patients with similar clinical conditions. When I last checked, Cases Database had in its repository 27,915 peer-reviewed medical case reports from 250 journals (!) [ 13 ]. Cases Database is quickly becoming my first go to when reading about a patient’s condition and symptoms.

When to write a case report

How does one determine when to write an actual case report? What constitutes and what are the criteria for publication? Different journals have different criteria, but here are the criteria for JMCR and BMCRN .

JMCR [ 21 ] publishes original and interesting case reports that contribute significantly to medical knowledge. Manuscripts must meet one of the following criteria: unreported or unusual side effects or adverse interactions involving medications; unexpected or unusual presentations of a disease; new associations or variations in disease processes; presentations, diagnoses and/or management of new and emerging diseases; an unexpected association between diseases or symptoms; an unexpected event in the course of observing or treating a patient; findings that shed new light on the possible pathogenesis of a disease or an adverse effect.

http://www.jmedicalcasereports.com/authors/instructions/casereport

BMCRN [ 22 ] has somewhat different publication criteria: BMCRN considers medical case reports that describe any clinical case. Case reports submitted to BMCRN do not need to be novel, but must be authentic cases and have some educational value along with representing at least an incremental advance in the field. BMCRN will not consider case reports describing preventive or therapeutic interventions because these generally require stronger evidence.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcresnotes/authors/instructions/casereport

Neither BMCRN nor JMCR will consider case reports where there are ethical concerns.

JMCR and BMCRN have the following definitions that authors should know: a single case report, two case reports, or a case series (greater than two reported cases). Both journals follow this format and accept submissions with these title structures.

I tend to classify case reports in my mind generally as follows: diagnosis-related, management-related, or both [ 10 ]. Either type should have clear and concise take-home messages and teaching points. I personally keep a stack of charts labeled “Curious Cases” on a bookshelf within my small office next to my desk which is always within my field of view at work, adhering to the “out of sight, out of mind” principle. Over the years that space has grown and, admittedly, I have cases dating back over the entire span of my years in practice (now over 13 years) which I simply have not gotten around to yet (!).

BMC editorial workflow for case reports: a brief glimpse

If a BMC Series journal editorial team considers a submitted case report unsuitable for their respective specialty journal (and now a growing list of Springer journals that BMC is now affiliated with), the authors are given the option to transfer their manuscript to BMCRN . If this option is exercised, then the BMC editorial team (usually the Case Report Section Editor for BMCRN in conjunction with the appropriate Associate Editor) determines if the manuscript is suitable for BMCRN or if it is more suitable for JMCR (based on the criteria listed above). The manuscripts will then be forwarded on to the respective Deputy and/or Associate Editors for peer review depending on which of the journals the author(s) agree(s) to. Peer reviewers are solicited (usually at least one at BMCRN and at least two at JMCR ). The peer review comments (which are open and identifiable at JMCR and blinded at BMCRN ) are then usually sent to the authors for appropriate revisions and rebuttals (unless it is felt that the manuscript should be rejected outright, at which time the editorial office sends the authors an explanatory letter). After these revisions and rebuttals have been performed, the revised manuscript and rebuttals are sent back to the respective editors for a final decision and recommendations. These decisions and recommendations are then forwarded on to the Editor-in-Chief for final approval for publication. At JMCR , manuscripts are professionally copyedited before being sent off to the production team for publication, whereas at BMCRN the authors are requested to obtain their own professional copyediting (if needed) before publication (the respective costs being reflected within the different article processing charges for both journals). When the manuscripts are published in both journals, they are in the preliminary form before being converted to the final form after production.

Author satisfaction consistently ranks high for the overall process in both journals.

The actual case report

Now let us discuss the brass tacks of writing the actual case report by going through the individual sections that will comprise the manuscript. I will present them in a sequence that matches the journals’ website requirements and provide easily accessible hyperlinks to both respective journals.

The first page of the manuscript should be a dedicated title page, including the title of the article. The title should be a clear and short description of the case with a list of the full names, institutional addresses and email addresses for all authors. There should always be at least one corresponding author who is clearly identified. Abbreviations within the title should always be avoided.

http://www.jmedicalcasereports.com/authors/instructions/casereport#formatting-title

http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcresnotes/authors/instructions/casereport#title

I usually end the title with “…: a case report” or “…: two case reports” or “…: a case series”. I also try to avoid any puns or overly cute wording within the title and try to keep things strictly descriptive and clear. The title needs to accurately describe the case – after all, this may be all that someone reads. If a cute or clever title is used that obscures what the case is really about, then it may be even less likely that the manuscript is read.

The Abstract should be “short and sweet”. It should not exceed 350 words. Abbreviations or references within the Abstract should not be used. The Abstract should be structured into three sections: Background, an introduction about why this case is important and needs to be reported. Please include information on whether this is the first report of this kind in the literature; Case presentation, brief details of what the patient(s) presented with, including the patient’s age, sex and ethnic background; Conclusions, a brief conclusion of what the reader should learn from the case report and what the clinical impact will be. Is it an original case report of interest to a particular clinical specialty of medicine or will it have a broader clinical impact across medicine? Are any teaching points identified?

http://www.jmedicalcasereports.com/authors/instructions/casereport#formatting-abstract

http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcresnotes/authors/instructions/casereport#abstract

I find this is the most important part because this is often all that people will read and its availability will allow easy retrieval from electronic databases and help researchers decide their level of interest in the case report. The Abstract should be a concise and condensed version of the case report and should include the same main sections of the main text and be as succinct as possible [ 3 ]. This is the last thing that I usually write as it tends to flow easily after I have invested my time in thought and writing of the manuscript.

This section is comprised of three to ten keywords representing the main content of the article. It is important for indexing the manuscript and easy online retrieval.

http://www.jmedicalcasereports.com/authors/instructions/casereport#formatting-keywords

http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcresnotes/authors/instructions/casereport#formatting-keywords

Introduction (Background)

The Introduction ( JMCR ) or Background ( BMCRN ) section should explain the background of the case, including the disorder, usual presentation and progression, and an explanation of the presentation if it is a new disease. If it is a case discussing an adverse drug interaction the Introduction should give details of the drug’s common use and any previously reported side effects. It should also include a brief literature review. This should give an introduction to the case report from the standpoint of those without specialist knowledge in the area, clearly explaining the background of the topic. It should end with a very brief statement of what is being reported in the article.

http://www.jmedicalcasereports.com/authors/instructions/casereport#formatting-intro

http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcresnotes/authors/instructions/casereport#background

The Introduction or Background serves as the sales pitch for the rest of the manuscript. It should be concise and salient [ 3 ] and immediately attract the reader’s attention to entice him or her to read on.

Case presentation

This should present all relevant details concerning the case. The Case presentation section should contain a description of the patient’s relevant demographic information (without adding any details that could lead to the identification of the patient); any relevant medical history of the patient; the patient's symptoms and signs; any tests that were carried out and a description of any treatment or intervention. If it is a case series, then details must be included for all patients. This section may be broken into subsections with appropriate subheadings.

http://www.jmedicalcasereports.com/authors/instructions/casereport#formatting-case

http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcresnotes/authors/instructions/casereport#presentation

This is one of the most integral sections. The case should be described in a concise and chronological order. One should usually begin with the primary complaint, salient history (including significant family, occupational, and other social history along with any significant medications taken or allergies), followed by the physical examination, starting with the vital signs presented at the examination, along with pertinent investigations and results. There should be enough detail (but not too much) for the reader to establish his or her own conclusions about the validity. It should contain only pertinent information and nothing superfluous or confusing [ 3 ].

This is an optional section in JMCR for additional comments that provide additional relevant information not included in the case presentation, and that put the case in context or that explain specific treatment decisions.

http://www.jmedicalcasereports.com/authors/instructions/casereport#formatting-discussion

This section should evaluate the patient case for accuracy, validity, and uniqueness and compare and contrast the case report with the published literature. The authors should briefly summarize the published literature with contemporary references [ 3 ].

Although this section is optional in JMCR (and not even listed separately on the BMCRN guidelines website), I find that most authors write this section, or an expanded conclusions section incorporating the elements listed above.

I personally write a separate discussion section and conclusions section for each case report that I author.

Conclusions

This should state clearly the main conclusions of the case report and give a clear explanation of their importance and relevance. Is it an original case report of interest to a particular clinical specialty of medicine or will it have a broader clinical impact across medicine? Information should be included on how it will significantly advance our knowledge of a particular disease etiology or drug mechanism (if appropriate).

http://www.jmedicalcasereports.com/authors/instructions/casereport#formatting-conclusion

http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcresnotes/authors/instructions/casereport#conclusions

This should be short and concise with clear take-home messages and teaching points [ 3 ].

Patient’s perspective

This section is an opportunity for patients to add a description of a case from their own perspective. The patients should be encouraged to state what originally made them seek medical advice, give a description of their symptoms, whether the symptoms were better or worse at different times, how tests and treatments affected them, and how the problem is now. This section can be written as deemed appropriate by the patients, but should not include identifying information that is irrelevant to the case reported. As medicine becomes more person-centered, the voice of the individual patient becomes even more important, both to assist in clinical decision making, and for medical education.

http://www.jmedicalcasereports.com/authors/instructions/casereport#formatting-patients

This optional section is unique to JMCR , and I believe adds an important new dimension to the traditional case report. Most authors still do not yet take advantage of this, but I hope as time goes on and more and more open access case report manuscripts are published that this section will be routinely used, not just in JMCR but also in BMCRN and all other BMC clinical journals. I recall one manuscript in particular where the patient himself was requesting publication as soon as possible because of his terminal disease. He wanted his message out there and be available to all to read before he died.

List of abbreviations

When abbreviations are used in the text they should be defined in the text at first use, and a list of abbreviations can be provided, which should precede the Competing interests and Authors’ contributions sections.

http://www.jmedicalcasereports.com/authors/instructions/casereport#formatting-abbreviations

http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcresnotes/authors/instructions/casereport#formatting-abbreviations

Both JMCR and BMCRN publish case reports over a wide range of medical and surgical specialties, and it is important for the reader who may not be within that particular specialty to readily access a quick list of common technical abbreviations. Also, given the open access nature of both journals, please keep in mind that non-medical professionals may read the manuscript as well.

This section is compulsory for BMC. It should provide a statement to confirm that the patient has given their informed consent for the case report to be published. The written consent should not routinely be sent in along with the manuscript submission (because of patient privacy issues), but the BMC editorial office may request copies of the consent documentation at any time. The following wording is recommended: “Written informed consent was obtained from the patient for publication of this case report and accompanying images. A copy of the written consent is available for review by the Editor-in-Chief of this journal.” If the individual described in the case report is a minor, or unable to provide consent, then consent must be sought from his or her parents or legal guardians. In these cases, the statement in the ‘Consent’ section of the manuscript should be amended accordingly. Please keep in mind that manuscripts will not be peer reviewed if a statement of patient consent is not present.

http://www.jmedicalcasereports.com/authors/instructions/casereport#formatting-consent

http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcresnotes/authors/instructions/casereport#consent

In practice, I always start with written consent from the patient. If the patient is incapacitated or deceased, then I obtain consent from the patient’s next-of-kin. Once this is obtained then I place it in the patient’s chart for safe keeping. I find that most patients and family members are quite agreeable to publication as long as their details are anonymous. BMC has very clear and explicit consent criteria and consent forms in multiple languages. I always keep a consent form within my office (and carry a few in my doctor’s handbag for hospital consults) for ready access. After I have obtained consent, I place it in the patient’s chart and keep it my office.

If the patient has died, then I try to obtain consent from the patient’s next-of-kin. This is usually done via telephone or postal mail. If the deceased patient’s family is amenable (and usually they are), then I send them (I never use email when it comes to patient-identifying information) the pre-filled out consent form in their language with a return envelope and paid for postage via the postal service. If I am unable to obtain consent this way in a case involving a patient who has died, then I write in the Consent section the following: “Written informed consent could not be obtained from the deceased patient’s next-of-kin for publication of this case report and accompanying images despite all reasonable attempts. Every effort has been made to protect the patient’s identity and there is no reason to believe that our patient would have objected to publication.”

If the patient was last known to be living but untraceable (or mentally incapacitated without next-of-kin consent), then I just simply do not publish the case.

For further information, please see JMCR and BMCRN website consent section hyperlinks as listed above.

Competing interests

A competing interest exists when one’s interpretation of data or presentation of information may be influenced by a personal or financial relationship with other people or organizations. Authors must disclose any financial competing interests and should also reveal any non-financial competing interests that may cause embarrassment were they to become public after the publication of the manuscript. Authors are required to complete a declaration of competing interests. All competing interests that are declared will be listed at the end of published article. Where an author gives no competing interests, the listing should read “The author(s) declare that they have no competing interests”.

http://www.jmedicalcasereports.com/authors/instructions/casereport#formatting-competing

http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcresnotes/authors/instructions/casereport#formatting-competing

I do not usually find any problems with competing interests in the case reports that I publish, but the section should always be completed in our era and in the spirit of complete disclosure.

Authors’ contributions

In order to give appropriate credit to each author of a paper, the individual contributions of authors to the manuscript should be specified in this section.

An ‘author’ is generally considered to be someone who has made substantive intellectual contributions to a published study. To qualify as an author one should: 1) have made substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; 2) have been involved in drafting the manuscript or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and 3) have given final approval of the version to be published. Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content. Acquisition of funding, collection of data, or general supervision of the research group, alone, does not justify authorship. All contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in an Acknowledgements section. Examples of those who might be acknowledged include a person who provided purely technical help, writing assistance, or a department chair who provided only general support.

http://www.jmedicalcasereports.com/authors/instructions/casereport#formatting-contributions

http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcresnotes/authors/instructions/casereport#formatting-contributions

I have found over the years a trend towards multi-authored case report manuscripts by many different individuals involved in the care of a patient(s). In my setting, it is usually me, a medical student or resident, a second-opinion tertiary colleague, and/or a pathologist or radiologist (if applicable). But I also recognize that there are situations that warrant more co-authors. The above criteria though for co-authorship should always be followed, and I have seen editorial situations where peer reviewers (including Associate Editors) have questioned what they felt was excessive authorship.

Authors’ information

This section includes any relevant information about the author(s) that may aid the reader’s interpretation of the article and understanding of the standpoint of the author(s). This may include details about the authors’ qualifications, current positions they hold at institutions or societies, or any other relevant background information. Please refer to authors using their initials. Note this section should not be used to describe any competing interests.

http://www.jmedicalcasereports.com/authors/instructions/casereport#formatting-information

http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcresnotes/authors/instructions/casereport#formatting-information

In practice, I have frankly also personally used this section to advertise my services and “tout” my certifications and subspecialties (along with any co-authors and affiliated institutions) to my surrounding local community. This has in turn given me a modest increase in business (which has been completely non-monetary to date), usually in the form of email-based queries, many of which come from patients outside of my locality.

Acknowledgements

Authors should acknowledge anyone who contributed towards the article by making substantial contributions to conception, design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data, or who was involved in drafting the manuscript or revising it critically for important intellectual content, but who does not meet the criteria for authorship. Also included should be the source(s) of funding for each author, and for the manuscript preparation. Authors must describe the role of the funding body, if any, in the: design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Please also acknowledge anyone who contributed materials essential for the study. If a language editor has made significant revision of the manuscript, I recommend that you acknowledge the editor by name, where possible. Authors may also like to acknowledge (anonymously) the patient on whom the case report is based. If a scientific (medical) writer is used, this person should be included in the Acknowledgements section, including their source(s) of funding. Authors should obtain permission to acknowledge from all those mentioned in the Acknowledgements section.

http://www.jmedicalcasereports.com/authors/instructions/casereport#formatting-acknowledgements

http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcresnotes/authors/instructions/casereport#formatting-acknowledgements

I have had colleagues who do not want to participate in the actual writing of the manuscript or do any actual “work” who have instead preferred to be mentioned in this section only.

Authors must search for and cite published case reports that are relevant to the case they are presenting. There should be no more than 15 references usually, although BMC does publish manuscripts with more references particularly if there is an extended literature review. Unless it is of historic interest, please keep the references as contemporary as feasible (for example, within the last 5 years or so). Please avoid excessive referencing.

http://www.jmedicalcasereports.com/authors/instructions/casereport#formatting-references

http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcresnotes/authors/instructions/casereport#formatting-references

Cover letter

This is a separate document that should be written and uploaded with the main manuscript submission. I usually write this after I have written the Abstract. The cover letter should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief in a formal manner and include all of the authors’ contact information. It should clearly and concisely state the title of the manuscript, and why the authors feel that their case report should be published based on any already available literature on the topic at hand. From an editor’s viewpoint, the cover letter is exceptionally important as that is the first thing that he or she reads and serves as the gateway to the Abstract and then the rest of the manuscript.

BMC author academy: help for all

Both JMCR and BMCRN have a large number of non-native English-speaking authors. Since JMCR and BMCRN are both BMC publications whose editorial offices are based in England, the language of publication is of course English. The BMC author academy is a joint program by BMC and Edanz [ 23 ] aimed at equipping writers for successful publication. Their materials have been developed from training workshops that Edanz gives to researchers worldwide and are not just limited to case reports. BMC recommends Edanz for authors who want to have their manuscript edited by a native speaker of English who is a scientific expert. Edanz provides scientific editing and related services that raise the quality of manuscripts to the standard needed to be understood at peer review.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/authors/authoracademy

I find that most non-native English-speaking authors have their manuscripts reviewed informally by a native English-speaking colleague and/or friend who is usually mentioned within the Acknowledgements section. This is understandable to keep costs down. However, please be aware that poor grammar and frequent spelling mistakes can be an impediment to editorial work flow and peer review. The editorial staff for both JMCR and BMCRN are acutely aware and sensitive to this given the large number of international submissions. At both JMCR and BMCRN , submitted manuscripts with questionable grammar and spelling are returned back to the authors by the editorial staff if it is felt that the grammar and spelling mistakes would impede peer review. If these issues are minor and it is felt that they would not impede peer review, then the manuscripts are sent off to peer reviewers (when appropriate).

Final checklist and the rule of C s

After I have completed a case report, I like to run through my long-winded (but useful) “rule of Cs” which is as follows.

Is it C lear, C oncise, and C oherent? Does it C onvey your message? Have you used C ases Database to look for any previously similar reported cases, and included them, if appropriate, in your references? Have you C onferred with your C olleagues on the C ontent? Will it C ause the reader to be C urious? Did you obtain C onsent? Does it C ontain all of the necessary information? Does it C omply with BM C guidelines? Do you think that it may need C opyediting? Do your C o-authors C oncur with the C ompleted paper? C an you C ut anything unnecessary out? Are your findings likely to be a C oincidence or by C hance alone? If so, then mention this in the Discussion section. Is the writing style C onsistent? Many times I find co-authored manuscripts have different writing styles within the same paper depending on who wrote what section. There should be a C entral, C orresponding author who is in C harge and oversees all of this. Is the C ase report written in a C hronological fashion with respect to the patient’s history and C hain of events? Is there anything that can be C ut out and have it still C ontain the C ompulsory information? Is it C oncise? Have you C onveyed C uriosity for your C ase report within your C over letter to the editorial team? Remember: your C over letter is the sales pitch to the editorial team! Make it C ount! Have you used within the manuscript C opyrighted information from another source? If so, do you need and/or have permission for use? After C ompletion, wait a C ouple of days before final submission to C lear your mind and read the manuscript again to C atch any mistakes that you may have made while you were C aught up in the C ompletion of it. Are the references C ontemporary? C an it be C omprehended by the average (“ C ”) reader? Remember, both JMCR and BMCRN are open access and freely available to anyone with an Internet C onnection and C omputer. C ast as wide a net as possible and C apture your C olleagues’ and other readers’ C uriosity. And first and foremost as a C linician: was the C are of your patient C ompetent and C ompassionate? (that is, are there any ethical concerns that may preclude peer review and publication?).

Summary and parting advice

Case reporting can be fun and a lifelong hobby, both for novice and experienced authors alike. It is now integral and widely accepted within published medical literature and today’s electronic information and data-sharing age. By following the above recommended steps and general overview, I hope to encourage BMC authors to continue to write and submit manuscripts to both JMCR and BMCRN . After your manuscript is complete, please follow the rule of “Cs”, especially “ C lear, C oncise, C oherent, C onsent, C ompassion, and C ompetence”, which will be appreciated by both reviewers and editors. Do not be afraid to obtain help from native English speakers for your manuscript. Also, please adhere to deadlines and follow instructions given by the editorial office, especially regarding any revisions. Editors read many different manuscripts and the longer it takes to get back a manuscript after revisions have been requested the less fresh that manuscript is in mind. Lastly, consider volunteering as an Associate Editor and/or reviewer within your specialty for both journals. I do for both, and the experience has improved both my writing and editing skills and daily interactions with patients.

Recommended further reading

I recommend the following further instructive reading on how and when to write a case report: References [ 3 , 7 , 10 , 24 ] (the last referenced article is in German, but one should readily be able to obtain an English translation if needed through a local librarian. It is well worth reading.)

I also recommend the following instructive BMC-related editorials and commentaries concerning the modern-day importance of case reports: References 2, 18, and 19.

I thank Professor Michael R. Kidd for his valuable advice and comments on this manuscript.

• Breasted J. The Edwin Smith Surgical Papyrus. Chicago: Chicago University Press; 1930. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rison RA. Neurology case reporting: a call for all. J Med Case Reports. 2011;7:113. doi: 10.1186/1752-1947-5-113. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen H. How to write a case report. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2006;7:1888–1892. doi: 10.2146/ajhp060182. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gottleib GJ, Rogoz A, Vogel JV, Friedman-Kien A, Rywlin AM, Weiner EA, Ackerman AB. A preliminary communication on extensively disseminated Kaposi’s sarcoma in a young homosexual man. Am J Dermatopathol. 1981;7:111–114. doi: 10.1097/00000372-198100320-00002. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goetz CG. The history of Parkinson’s disease: early clinical descriptions and neurological therapies. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2011;7(1):a008862. doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a008862. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thayer WS. Osler, The Teacher Sir William Osler, Bart. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press; 1920. pp. 51–52. [ Google Scholar ]
• Carleton HA, Webb ML. The case report in context. Yale J Biol Med. 2012;7:93–96. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Weblink. “ http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/case+report ” Accessed on August 11th, 2013.
• Weblink. “ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_report ” Accessed on August 11th, 2013.
• Peh WCG, Ng KH. Writing a case report. Singapore Med J. 2010;7(1):10. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Weblink. “ http://www.uptodate.com/home ” Accessed on August 11th, 2013.
• Weblink. “ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed ” Accessed on August 11th, 2013.
• Weblink. “ http://www.casesdatabase.com/ ” Accessed on August 11th, 2013.
• Weblink. “ http://www.neurolist.com/ ” Accessed on August 11th, 2013.
• Weblink. “ http://www.aan.com/ ” Accessed on August 11th, 2013.
• Weblink. “ http://www.sermo.com/ ” Accessed on August 11th, 2013.
• Weblink. “ http://www.biomedcentral.com/authors/bmcseries ” Accessed on August 11th, 2013.
• Kidd MR, Saltman DC. Case reports at the vanguard of 21st century medicine. J Med Case Reports. 2012;7:156. doi: 10.1186/1752-1947-6-156. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cabán-Martinez AJ, Beltrán WF. Advancing medicine one research note at a time: the educational value in clinical case reports. BMC Res Notes. 2012;7:293. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-5-293. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Weblink. “ http://www.casesdatabase.com/about ” Accessed on August 11th, 2013.
• Weblink. “ http://www.jmedicalcasereports.com/ ” Accessed on August 11th, 2013.
• Weblink. “ http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcresnotes ” Accessed on August 11th, 2013.
• Weblink. “ http://www.edanzediting.com/ ” Accessed on August 11th, 2013.
• Schneemann M, Ruggieri F. [Publish your case report]. [Article in German] Praxis (Bern 1994) 2013. pp. 253–259. doi:10.1024/1661-8157/a001229. quiz 60–61. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ]
• View on publisher site
• PDF (270.0 KB)
• Collections

Similar articles

Cited by other articles, links to ncbi databases.

• Download .nbib .nbib
• Format: AMA APA MLA NLM

Add to Collections

• - Google Chrome

Intended for healthcare professionals

• Access provided by Google Indexer
• My email alerts
• BMA member login
• Username * Password * Forgot your log in details? Need to activate BMA Member Log In Log in via OpenAthens Log in via your institution

Search form

• Advanced search
• Search responses
• Search blogs
• Writing a case report...

Writing a case report in 10 steps

• Related content
• Peer review
• Victoria Stokes , foundation year 2 doctor, trauma and orthopaedics, Basildon Hospital ,
• Caroline Fertleman , paediatrics consultant, The Whittington Hospital NHS Trust
• victoria.stokes1{at}nhs.net

Victoria Stokes and Caroline Fertleman explain how to turn an interesting case or unusual presentation into an educational report

It is common practice in medicine that when we come across an interesting case with an unusual presentation or a surprise twist, we must tell the rest of the medical world. This is how we continue our lifelong learning and aid faster diagnosis and treatment for patients.

It usually falls to the junior to write up the case, so here are a few simple tips to get you started.

First steps

Begin by sitting down with your medical team to discuss the interesting aspects of the case and the learning points to highlight. Ideally, a registrar or middle grade will mentor you and give you guidance. Another junior doctor or medical student may also be keen to be involved. Allocate jobs to split the workload, set a deadline and work timeframe, and discuss the order in which the authors will be listed. All listed authors should contribute substantially, with the person doing most of the work put first and the guarantor (usually the most senior team member) at the end.

Getting consent

Gain permission and written consent to write up the case from the patient or parents, if your patient is a child, and keep a copy because you will need it later for submission to journals.

Information gathering

Gather all the information from the medical notes and the hospital’s electronic systems, including copies of blood results and imaging, as medical notes often disappear when the patient is discharged and are notoriously difficult to find again. Remember to anonymise the data according to your local hospital policy.

Write up the case emphasising the interesting points of the presentation, investigations leading to diagnosis, and management of the disease/pathology. Get input on the case from all members of the team, highlighting their involvement. Also include the prognosis of the patient, if known, as the reader will want to know the outcome.

Coming up with a title

Discuss a title with your supervisor and other members of the team, as this provides the focus for your article. The title should be concise and interesting but should also enable people to find it in medical literature search engines. Also think about how you will present your case study—for example, a poster presentation or scientific paper—and consider potential journals or conferences, as you may need to write in a particular style or format.

Background research

Research the disease/pathology that is the focus of your article and write a background paragraph or two, highlighting the relevance of your case report in relation to this. If you are struggling, seek the opinion of a specialist who may know of relevant articles or texts. Another good resource is your hospital library, where staff are often more than happy to help with literature searches.

How your case is different

Move on to explore how the case presented differently to the admitting team. Alternatively, if your report is focused on management, explore the difficulties the team came across and alternative options for treatment.

Finish by explaining why your case report adds to the medical literature and highlight any learning points.

Writing an abstract

The abstract should be no longer than 100-200 words and should highlight all your key points concisely. This can be harder than writing the full article and needs special care as it will be used to judge whether your case is accepted for presentation or publication.

Discuss with your supervisor or team about options for presenting or publishing your case report. At the very least, you should present your article locally within a departmental or team meeting or at a hospital grand round. Well done!

Competing interests: We have read and understood BMJ’s policy on declaration of interests and declare that we have no competing interests.