SynthesisEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2010
'Case reporting of rare adverse events in otolaryngology': can we defend the case report?
Synthesis in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Finding Case Report Nuggets: A Web-Based Tool for Mining and Enhancing the Value of Clinical Case Reports.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Do Case Reports Still Have a Place in Turkish Archives of Otorhinolaryngology?Turkish archives of otorhinolaryngology · 2017Article
- The case for the case report: refine to save.Irish journal of medical science · 2011Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The study of errors in medicine has proliferated since the publication of The Institute of Medicine Report 'TO ERR IS HUMAN' in 2000. Case nuances and process of care issues are valuable areas to explore if the goal is to provide the health care worker with the knowledge to avoid future errors. Meta-analysis and randomized controlled trials provide a large data base of evidence towards improvement and opportunities, but it is suggested that case reports can still provide valuable clinical information. The aim is to use the published literature to produce a series of rare harm case reports in E.N.T. The methods include systematic literature review. Journals searched in PUBMED were 60. Rare harm case obtained from the search were 5,322. Rare harm case reports not reported in any other form of evidence-based medicine were 40. Yes, the case report can be defended as it is an important pillar of evidence-based medicine.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20532794What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.