ReviewBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2025
Therapeutic reasoning in case reports: Insights into current reporting and learning opportunities.
Review in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of Few-Shot AI-Generated Feedback on Case Reports in Physical Therapy Education: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR medical education · 2025Article
- Therapeutic reasoning in case reports: Insights into current reporting and learning opportunities.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsWhile case reports can help to train diagnostic reasoning, will they improve therapeutic reasoning as well? Prescribing the right medication is difficult and prone to error, which can lead to patient harm. Therefore, good therapeutic reasoning skills are essential. To determine the educational value of case reports with regard to therapeutic reasoning, we analysed the extensiveness and motivation for therapeutic choices in published case reports.
methodsReview of clinical case reports published in 17 high-impact medical journals (4 general medicine and 13 clinical pharmacology journals). The reasoning behind the choice of each prescribed medication was assessed, using a score form based on the World Health Organization 6-step method.
resultsA search of the PubMed database identified 143 case reports (516 drugs prescribed) published in 2023. The reasons for a specific drug being chosen were given for <10% of the drugs prescribed.
conclusionsAlthough case reports have the potential to develop clinical reasoning skills, this opportunity is underused for therapeutic reasoning. Key aspects, such as a complete description of drug choices and the underlying rationale, are frequently omitted. This gap limits the educational value of case reports. We recommend incorporating a structured approach to therapeutic reasoning in case reports, such as elements of the World Health Organization 6-step method, to enhance their clarity, educational impact and practical relevance. There is also a role for clinical pharmacology journals to actively highlight and promote high-quality therapeutic reasoning in the case reports they publish.
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.