ArticleFamily medicine2025
An Exploratory Study of Published Case Reports Using a Systematic Typology.
Article in Family medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesCase reports are a popular publication type, especially for medical learners. They also are an excellent educational vehicle that can spark a long-term interest in scholarship for medical learners. To maximize publication potential, authors need a framework when writing a case report.
methodsWe did a manifest content analysis on case reports published in 12 peer-reviewed medical journals between 2010 and 2019. We classified the case reports as detection, extension, diffusion, or fascination. The objective of our study was to determine whether case reports can successfully be classified by their primary contribution to the medial literature as detection, extension, diffusion, or fascination case reports.
resultsUsing a predefined search strategy, we identified 1,005 manuscripts identified as case reports published from 2010 to 2019 in 12 journals from a variety of medical specialties. Only 673 of the 1,005 (67.0%) met our criteria for a case report. Of these, 59.1% most closely fit the category of diffusion case reports. Fascination case reports were the least common (1.2%). The format of published case reports varied widely among journals.
conclusionsCase reports can be categorized according to their main contribution to the medical literature. Nearly 60% of all published case reports in this study were not published for the purpose of introducing a novel clinical entity. Instead, they were used as a vehicle to educate clinicians about previously described phenomena. Authors seeking to publish case reports should understand how the framing of their report is likely to influence their chances of being published.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.