Cited by 2,242Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsHealth Sciences Research and EducationStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

Methodological quality and synthesis of case series and case reports

Open access
Murad, Mohammad Hassan, Sultan, Shahnaz, Haffar, Samir, Bazerbachi, Fateh·2018·BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine

Abstract

Case reports and case series are uncontrolled study designs known for increased risk of bias but have profoundly influenced the medical literature and continue to advance our knowledge. In this guide, we present a framework for appraisal, synthesis and application of evidence derived from case reports and case series. We propose a tool to evaluate the methodological quality of case reports and case series based on the domains of selection, ascertainment, causality and reporting and provide signalling questions to aid evidence-based practitioners and systematic reviewers in their assessment. We suggest using evidence derived from case reports and case series to inform decision-making when no other higher level of evidence is available.

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 · 10.1136/bmjebm-2017-110853

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [18]Bazerbachi F, Haffar S, Leise MD, et al Liver function tests and pattern of hepatic injury in glycogenic hepatopathy associated with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and analysis of 172 cases. Washington D.C: American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, 2017.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Murad, M. H., Sultan, S., Haffar, S., & Bazerbachi, F.
Affiliations
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • University of Minnesota (US)
Corresponding author
Murad, Mohammad Hassan
Venue
BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2018-02-02
Volume
23
Issue
2
Pages
60-63
ISSN
  • 1356-5524 (ISSN-L)
  • 2515-446X
  • 2515-4478
OpenAlex
W2785755264
Cited by
2,242
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 224 · 2025: 310 · 2024: 298 · 2023: 298 · 2022: 338 · 2021: 392 · 2020: 269 · 2019: 89 · 2018: 21 · 2016: 1
FWCI
146.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
Keywords
case series, methodological quality assessment, risk of bias, evidence synthesis, reporting quality, causality, selection bias, ascertainment bias, evidence-based practice, clinical decision-making

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