A CRITICAL GUIDE TO CASE SERIES REPORTS
https://doi.org/10.14531/ss2005.1.128-133
Abstract
Objective. Provide guidance to investigators and authors regarding appropriate conduct and reporting of case-series studies. Summary of Background Data. Evidence-based practice has provided a substantial contribution to advancing clinical science. Many study designs have been critically examined, and the quality of the research literature has improved. A common study design in musculoskeletal medicine is the case series: a description of the course of patients over time. Case series can provide valuable information as to: case definition, trend analyses regarding outcomes, and clues as to causation. Case series cannot be used to draw inferences regarding treatment effect.
Methods. Examination of previous work on identification of characteristics of high quality study designs such as cohort studies; extending this work to case series.
Results. We identified draft characteristics that good case series studies should address: clearly defined study question; well-described study population; well-described intervention; use of validated outcome measures; appropriate statistical analyses; well-described results; discussion/conclusions supported by the data presented; funding sources acknowledged.
Conclusions. We propose these measures to authors and journal editors as one mechanism to improve the quality of the case series study.
About the Authors
Timothy S. Carey
The Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Scott D. Boden
Emory Clinic, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, USA
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Grimes D.A., Schulz K.F. Descriptive studies: what they can and cannot do. Lancet, 2002; 359: 145–149.
2. West S., King V., Carey T.S., et al. Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence. File Inventory, Evidence Report/Technology Assessment Number 47. AHRQ Publication No. 02-E0106, April 2002. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD.
3. Moseley J.B., O'Malley K., Petersen N.J., et al. A controlled trial of arthroscopic surgery for osteoarthritis of the knee. N Engl J. Med, 2002; 347: 81–88.
4. Djulbegovic B., Lacevic M., Cantor A., et al. The uncertainty principle and industry-sponsored research. Lancet, 2000; 356: 635–638.
5. Montori V., Guyatt G. Summarizing the evidence: publication bias. In: User's Guide to the Medical Literature: A Manual for Evidence-based Clinical Practice. Chicago IL: AMA Press, 2002: 530–538.
6. Davis G.W., Onik G. Clinical experience with automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy. Clin Orthop, 1989; 238: 98–103.
7. Chatterjee, Fory P.M., Findlay G.F. Report of a controlled clinical trial comparing automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy and microdiscectomy in the treatment of contained lumbar disc herniation // Spine. 1995; 20: 739–742.
8. Saal J.A., Saal J.S. Intradiscal electrothermal treatment for chronic discogenic low back pain // Spine. 2000; 25: 2622–2627.
Review
For citations:
Carey T.S., Boden S.D. A CRITICAL GUIDE TO CASE SERIES REPORTS. Russian Journal of Spine Surgery (Khirurgiya Pozvonochnika). 2005;(1):128-133. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.14531/ss2005.1.128-133
Email this article 