Case reports and case series from Lancet had significant impact on medical literature

Joerg Albrecht, Alexander Meves, Michael Bigby

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

77 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Case reports and case series are often the first evidence of innovative treatment, but clinical trials need to follow to substantiate this evidence. The objective of this article was to evaluate case reports or case series describing innovative treatment concerning their impact. Methods: Case reports and case series (n ≤ 10) from a high-impact journal, The Lancet, published from 1 January 1996 to 30 June 1997, were evaluated according to predefined criteria. To assess publication impact, Pubmed, Science Citation Index, the Register of Current Controlled Clinical Trials, and the Cochrance Controlled Clinical Trials Register were searched. Results: Sixty-four case reports and 39 case series were identified. They were cited in average 17 times (median 6,5; range 0-336). Twenty-Four follow-up trials were identified, nine in the register of current controlled clinical trials. Conclusion: Case reports and case series can be well received, and have significant influence on subsequent literature and possibly on clinical practice. Many were followed by clinical trials. Often, though, they report rare conditions for which trials may not be feasible, and more or less explicitly transfer established treatment into other conditions. Overall, there is a strong publication bias favoring positive results, and opportunity should be created for publication of follow-up reports.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1227-1232
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume58
Issue number12
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2005

Fingerprint

Controlled Clinical Trials
Publications
Clinical Trials
Publication Bias
PubMed

Keywords

  • Case reports
  • Case series
  • Clinical research
  • Clinical trials
  • Impact factor
  • Publication bias
  • Review

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Epidemiology

Cite this

Case reports and case series from Lancet had significant impact on medical literature. / Albrecht, Joerg; Meves, Alexander; Bigby, Michael.

In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 58, No. 12, 01.12.2005, p. 1227-1232.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{75958eba70c542b6af2903c38f2b41f6,
title = "Case reports and case series from Lancet had significant impact on medical literature",
abstract = "Background and Objectives: Case reports and case series are often the first evidence of innovative treatment, but clinical trials need to follow to substantiate this evidence. The objective of this article was to evaluate case reports or case series describing innovative treatment concerning their impact. Methods: Case reports and case series (n ≤ 10) from a high-impact journal, The Lancet, published from 1 January 1996 to 30 June 1997, were evaluated according to predefined criteria. To assess publication impact, Pubmed, Science Citation Index, the Register of Current Controlled Clinical Trials, and the Cochrance Controlled Clinical Trials Register were searched. Results: Sixty-four case reports and 39 case series were identified. They were cited in average 17 times (median 6,5; range 0-336). Twenty-Four follow-up trials were identified, nine in the register of current controlled clinical trials. Conclusion: Case reports and case series can be well received, and have significant influence on subsequent literature and possibly on clinical practice. Many were followed by clinical trials. Often, though, they report rare conditions for which trials may not be feasible, and more or less explicitly transfer established treatment into other conditions. Overall, there is a strong publication bias favoring positive results, and opportunity should be created for publication of follow-up reports.",
keywords = "Case reports, Case series, Clinical research, Clinical trials, Impact factor, Publication bias, Review",
author = "Joerg Albrecht and Alexander Meves and Michael Bigby",
year = "2005",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.04.003",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "58",
pages = "1227--1232",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",
issn = "0895-4356",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Case reports and case series from Lancet had significant impact on medical literature

AU - Albrecht, Joerg

AU - Meves, Alexander

AU - Bigby, Michael

PY - 2005/12/1

Y1 - 2005/12/1

N2 - Background and Objectives: Case reports and case series are often the first evidence of innovative treatment, but clinical trials need to follow to substantiate this evidence. The objective of this article was to evaluate case reports or case series describing innovative treatment concerning their impact. Methods: Case reports and case series (n ≤ 10) from a high-impact journal, The Lancet, published from 1 January 1996 to 30 June 1997, were evaluated according to predefined criteria. To assess publication impact, Pubmed, Science Citation Index, the Register of Current Controlled Clinical Trials, and the Cochrance Controlled Clinical Trials Register were searched. Results: Sixty-four case reports and 39 case series were identified. They were cited in average 17 times (median 6,5; range 0-336). Twenty-Four follow-up trials were identified, nine in the register of current controlled clinical trials. Conclusion: Case reports and case series can be well received, and have significant influence on subsequent literature and possibly on clinical practice. Many were followed by clinical trials. Often, though, they report rare conditions for which trials may not be feasible, and more or less explicitly transfer established treatment into other conditions. Overall, there is a strong publication bias favoring positive results, and opportunity should be created for publication of follow-up reports.

AB - Background and Objectives: Case reports and case series are often the first evidence of innovative treatment, but clinical trials need to follow to substantiate this evidence. The objective of this article was to evaluate case reports or case series describing innovative treatment concerning their impact. Methods: Case reports and case series (n ≤ 10) from a high-impact journal, The Lancet, published from 1 January 1996 to 30 June 1997, were evaluated according to predefined criteria. To assess publication impact, Pubmed, Science Citation Index, the Register of Current Controlled Clinical Trials, and the Cochrance Controlled Clinical Trials Register were searched. Results: Sixty-four case reports and 39 case series were identified. They were cited in average 17 times (median 6,5; range 0-336). Twenty-Four follow-up trials were identified, nine in the register of current controlled clinical trials. Conclusion: Case reports and case series can be well received, and have significant influence on subsequent literature and possibly on clinical practice. Many were followed by clinical trials. Often, though, they report rare conditions for which trials may not be feasible, and more or less explicitly transfer established treatment into other conditions. Overall, there is a strong publication bias favoring positive results, and opportunity should be created for publication of follow-up reports.

KW - Case reports

KW - Case series

KW - Clinical research

KW - Clinical trials

KW - Impact factor

KW - Publication bias

KW - Review

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=27744590464&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=27744590464&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.04.003

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.04.003

M3 - Article

C2 - 16291466

AN - SCOPUS:27744590464

VL - 58

SP - 1227

EP - 1232

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

SN - 0895-4356

IS - 12

ER -