tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
CMAJ Open
. 2021 Mar 30;9(1):E295-E301.
doi: 10.9778/cmajo.20200140. Print Jan-Mar 2021.
Completeness of reporting for COVID-19 case reports, January to April 2020: a meta-epidemiologic study
Michael A Scaffidi[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Nikko Gimpaya[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Juana Li[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Rishi Bansal[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Yash Verma[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Karam Elsolh[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Gemma M Donn[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Abhishek Panjwani[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Rishad Khan[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Samir C Grover[SUP] 2 [/SUP]
Affiliations
Abstract
Background: The quality of case reports, which are often the first reported evidence for a disease, may be negatively affected by a rush to publication early in a pandemic. We aimed to determine the completeness of reporting (COR) for case reports published on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
Methods: We conducted a systematic search of the PubMed database for all single-patient case reports of confirmed COVID-19 published from Jan. 1 to Apr. 24, 2020. All included case reports were assessed for adherence to the CARE (Case Report) 31-item checklist, which was used to create a composite COR score. The primary outcome was the mean COR score assessed by 2 independent raters. Secondary outcomes included whether there was a change in overall COR score with certain publication factors (e.g., publication date) and whether there was a linear relation between COR and citation count and between COR scores and social media attention.
Results: Our search identified 196 studies that were published in 114 unique journals. We found that the overall mean COR score was 54.4%. No one case report included all of the 31 CARE checklist items. There was no significant correlation between COR with either citation count or social media attention.
Interpretation: We found that the overall COR for case reports on COVID-19 was poor. We suggest that journals adopt common case-reporting standards to improve reporting quality.
. 2021 Mar 30;9(1):E295-E301.
doi: 10.9778/cmajo.20200140. Print Jan-Mar 2021.
Completeness of reporting for COVID-19 case reports, January to April 2020: a meta-epidemiologic study
Michael A Scaffidi[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Nikko Gimpaya[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Juana Li[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Rishi Bansal[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Yash Verma[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Karam Elsolh[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Gemma M Donn[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Abhishek Panjwani[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Rishad Khan[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Samir C Grover[SUP] 2 [/SUP]
Affiliations
- PMID: 33785477
- DOI: 10.9778/cmajo.20200140
Abstract
Background: The quality of case reports, which are often the first reported evidence for a disease, may be negatively affected by a rush to publication early in a pandemic. We aimed to determine the completeness of reporting (COR) for case reports published on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
Methods: We conducted a systematic search of the PubMed database for all single-patient case reports of confirmed COVID-19 published from Jan. 1 to Apr. 24, 2020. All included case reports were assessed for adherence to the CARE (Case Report) 31-item checklist, which was used to create a composite COR score. The primary outcome was the mean COR score assessed by 2 independent raters. Secondary outcomes included whether there was a change in overall COR score with certain publication factors (e.g., publication date) and whether there was a linear relation between COR and citation count and between COR scores and social media attention.
Results: Our search identified 196 studies that were published in 114 unique journals. We found that the overall mean COR score was 54.4%. No one case report included all of the 31 CARE checklist items. There was no significant correlation between COR with either citation count or social media attention.
Interpretation: We found that the overall COR for case reports on COVID-19 was poor. We suggest that journals adopt common case-reporting standards to improve reporting quality.