Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 383

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Preferred reporting of case series in surgery; the PROCESS guidelines

Open access
Agha, Riaz A., Fowler, Alexander J., Rajmohan, Shivanchan, Barai, Ishani, Orgill, Dennis P., Afifi, Raafat, Alahmadi, Raha, Albrecht, Joerg, Alsawadi, Abdulrahman, Aronson, Jeffrey, Ather, M. Hammad, Bashashati, Mohammad, Basu, Somprakas, Bradley, Patrick, Chalkoo, Mushtaq, Challacombe, Ben, Cross, Trent, Derbyshire, Laura, Farooq, Naheed, Hoffman, Jerome, Kadioglu, Huseyin, Kasivisvanathan, Veeru, Kirshtein, Boris, Klappenbach, Roberto, Laskin, Daniel, Miguel, Diana, Milburn, James, Muensterer, Oliver, Ngu, James, Nixon, Iain, Noureldin, Ashraf, Perakath, Benjamin, Raison, Nicholas, Raveendran, Kandiah, Sullivan, Timothy, Thoma, Achilleas, Thorat, M.A., Petroianu, Andy, Rao, Ashwini, Valmasoni, Michele, Massarut, Samuele, D’cruz, Anil, Vasudevan, Baskaran, Giordano, Salvatore, Healy, Donagh, Machado-Aranda, David, Millham, Frederick H., Carroll, Bryan, Mukherjee, Indraneilm, McCulloch, Peter, Sugawara, Yasuhiko, Rosin, David·2016·International Journal of Surgery

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Case series have been a long held tradition within the surgical literature and are still frequently published. Reporting guidelines can improve transparency and reporting quality. No guideline exists for reporting case series, and our recent systematic review highlights the fact that key data are being missed from such reports. Our objective was to develop reporting guidelines for surgical case series. METHODS: A Delphi consensus exercise was conducted to determine items to include in the reporting guideline. Items included those identified from a previous systematic review on case series and those included in the SCARE Guidelines for case reports. The Delphi questionnaire was administered via Google Forms and conducted using standard Delphi methodology. Surgeons and others with expertise in the reporting of case series were invited to participate. In round one, participants voted to define case series and also what elements should be included in them. In round two, participants voted on what items to include in the PROCESS guideline using a nine-point Likert scale to assess agreement as proposed by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) working group. RESULTS: In round one, there was a 49% (29/59) response rate. Following adjustment of the guideline with incorporation of recommended changes, round two commenced and there was an 81% (48/59) response rate. All but one of the items were approved by the participants and Likert scores 7-9 were awarded by >70% of respondents. The final guideline consists of an eight item checklist. CONCLUSION: We present the PROCESS Guideline, consisting of an eight item checklist that will improve the reporting quality of surgical case series. We encourage authors, reviewers, editors, journals, publishers and the wider surgical and scholarly community to adopt these.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.10.025

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Agha, R. A., Fowler, A. J., Rajmohan, S., Barai, I., Orgill, D. P., Afifi, R., Alahmadi, R., Albrecht, J., Alsawadi, A., Aronson, J., Ather, M. H., Bashashati, M., Basu, S., Bradley, P., Chalkoo, M., Challacombe, B., Cross, T., Derbyshire, L., Farooq, N., Hoffman, J., Kadioglu, H., Kasivisvanathan, V., Kirshtein, B., Klappenbach, R., Laskin, D., Miguel, D., Milburn, J., Muensterer, O., Ngu, J., Nixon, I., Noureldin, A., Perakath, B., Raison, N., Raveendran, K., Sullivan, T., Thoma, A., Thorat, M. A., Petroianu, A., Rao, A., Valmasoni, M., Massarut, S., D’cruz, A., Vasudevan, B., Giordano, S., Healy, D., Machado-Aranda, D., Millham, F. H., Carroll, B., Mukherjee, I., McCulloch, P., Sugawara, Y., & Rosin, D.
Venue
International Journal of Surgery
Published
2016-12
Volume
36
Issue
Pt A
Pages
319-323
ISSN
  • 1743-9159 (ISSN-L)
  • 1743-9191
OpenAlex
W2535727142
Cited by
383
References
3
FWCI
83.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.