Article type
Year
Abstract
Background:
Case reports and case series are important in the individualisation of clinical practice recommendations, for the reporting of adverse and beneficial effects of various treatments and in the description of new and unusual diseases. However, despite the availability of several tools for the evaluation of the completeness of reporting in these studies, there is a lot of unevenness and lack of rigour in the reporting process. This scoping review seeks to identify and compare the development process and domains of tools used to assess the completeness of reporting in case report and case series studies.
Objectives:
To systematically identify and describe the developmental process for tools used to assess the quality of reporting of case report and case series studies. We also aim to describe and compare the various domains used by the different tools and to assess the relevance of these domains in a systematic review of case reports and case series respectively.
Methods:
The method in this scoping review draws from the framework for conducting a scoping study proposed by Arksey and O'Malley and clarified by Levac et al. Using keywords and MeSH terms, we will search MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase and CINAHL, without any restrictions. We will search the reference lists of identified studies, contact experts in the field and conduct an internet search using Google in order to capture tools on the Internet. Two authors will independently screen the search outputs, select studies and extract data, with discrepancies being resolved by discussion and consensus between the two authors or arbitration by a third author when necessary. We will specify the identified tools, describe their characteristics and development processes, and compare their domains.
Results:
This review is ongoing and the findings will be presented at the Colloquium. This study draws on data readily available in the public domain and does not require formal ethical review and approval.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement:
None.
Case reports and case series are important in the individualisation of clinical practice recommendations, for the reporting of adverse and beneficial effects of various treatments and in the description of new and unusual diseases. However, despite the availability of several tools for the evaluation of the completeness of reporting in these studies, there is a lot of unevenness and lack of rigour in the reporting process. This scoping review seeks to identify and compare the development process and domains of tools used to assess the completeness of reporting in case report and case series studies.
Objectives:
To systematically identify and describe the developmental process for tools used to assess the quality of reporting of case report and case series studies. We also aim to describe and compare the various domains used by the different tools and to assess the relevance of these domains in a systematic review of case reports and case series respectively.
Methods:
The method in this scoping review draws from the framework for conducting a scoping study proposed by Arksey and O'Malley and clarified by Levac et al. Using keywords and MeSH terms, we will search MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase and CINAHL, without any restrictions. We will search the reference lists of identified studies, contact experts in the field and conduct an internet search using Google in order to capture tools on the Internet. Two authors will independently screen the search outputs, select studies and extract data, with discrepancies being resolved by discussion and consensus between the two authors or arbitration by a third author when necessary. We will specify the identified tools, describe their characteristics and development processes, and compare their domains.
Results:
This review is ongoing and the findings will be presented at the Colloquium. This study draws on data readily available in the public domain and does not require formal ethical review and approval.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement:
None.