Revitalizing case reports: Standardized guidelines and mentorship

Despite a decrease in publication, case reports remain essential in medical literature as they offer detailed descriptions of individual patient cases and valuable insights for future management. These reports adhere to a standardized structure comprising sections such as abstract, introduction, case report, discussion, and conclusion. Obtaining informed consent and adhering to guidelines is essential. Case reports contribute to evidence-based medicine by detecting new therapies and adverse events. They also facilitate clear reporting, guideline adherence, and mentorship programs. These reports are vital for documenting rare occurrences, assisting clinicians in timely management, and communicating novel information to busy medical professionals. Following case report guidelines ensures comprehensive and standardized reporting, enhancing the acceptance and quality of case reports, and advancing medical knowledge.

Cutaneous allergic reaction to subcutaneous vitamin K1: A case report and review of literature

BACKGROUND

Vitamin K1 (phytomenadione) is a fat-soluble naturally occurring vitamin that is widely used to treat certain coagulation disorders. Adverse cutaneous reactions to vitamin K1 can occur; however, owing to its low incidence and considerable variability in presentation and morphology, its diagnosis can be easily overlooked. Managing these reactions may be challenging for patients and clinicians. Therefore, reviewing the adverse cutaneous reactions to vitamin K1 is important.

CASE SUMMARY

Here we report the case of a 50-year-old woman with no pre-existing hepatic disease who developed a cutaneous allergic reaction to subcutaneous vitamin K1 that presented as localized eczematous plaques at the vitamin K1 injection site. The eruption developed within 5 d of the injection and persisted for 32 mo despite treatment with topical and intralesional steroids. Eczema was diagnosed based on the results of the pathological examination, immunohistochemical staining, and a skin biopsy. The patient was advised to take herbal medicines orally twice daily. After treatment and follow-up, the patient's eczematous urticarial plaques improved and her condition stabilized.

CONCLUSION

Here we present the first case of a cutaneous allergic reaction to subcutaneous vitamin K1 that was successfully treated with Chinese medicine.

How about the reporting quality of case reports in nursing field?

BACKGROUND

As a significantly important part of clinical practice, the professional nursing process can be advanced in many ways. Despite the fact that case reports are regarded to be of a lower quality grade in the hierarchy of evidence, one of the principles of evidence-based medicine is that decision-making should be based on a systematic summary of evidence. However, the evidence on the reporting characteristics of case reports in the nursing field is deficient.

AIM

To use the CARE guidelines to assess reporting quality and factors influencing the quality of case reports in the nursing field.

METHODS

Nursing science citation indexed (SCI-indexed) journals were identified from the professional website. Each of the identified journals was searched on their website for articles published before December 2017. Twenty-one sub-items on the CARE checklist were recorded as “YES”, “PARTLY”, or “NO” according to information reported by the included studies. The responses were assigned corresponding scores of 1, 0.5, and 0, respectively. The overall score was the sum of the 21 sub-items and was defined as “high” (more than 15), “medium” (10.5 to 14.5), and “low” (less than 10). The means, standard deviations, odds ratios (OR), and the associated 95% confidence interval (CI) were determined using Stata 12.0 software.

RESULTS

Ultimately, 184 case reports from 16 SCI-indexed journals were identified, with overall scores ranging from 6.5 to 18 (mean = 13.6 ± 2.3). Of the included case reports, 10.3% were regarded low-quality, 52.7% were considered middle-quality, and 37% were regarded high-quality. There were statistical differences in the mean overall scores of the included case reports with funding versus those without funding (14.2 ± 1.7 vs 13.6 ± 2.4, respectively; P = 0.4456) and journal impact factor < 1.8 versus impact factor ≥ 1.8 (13.3 ± 2.3 vs 13.6 ± 2.4, respectively; P = 0.4977). Five items from the CARE guidelines, 5a (Patient), 6 (Clinical findings), 8c (Diagnostic reasoning), 9 (Therapeutic intervention), and 11d (The main take-away lessons) were well-reported (Reporting rate more than 90%) in most of the included case reports. However, only three items, 2 (Keywords, OR = 0.42, 95%CI: 0.19-0.92, P = 0.03), 4 (Introduction, OR = 0.35, 95%CI: 0.15-0.83, P = 0.017), and 11b (The relevant medical literature, OR = 0.19, 95%CI: 0.06-0.56, P = 0.003) were considered better-reported after the CARE guidelines published in 2013.

CONCLUSION

The reporting quality of case reports in the nursing field apparently has not improved since the publication of the CARE guidelines.