The SCARE Statement: Consensus-based surgical case report guidelines

Introduction: Case reports have been a long held tradition within the surgical literature. Reporting guidelines can improve transparency and reporting quality. However, recent consensus-based guidelines for case reports (CARE) are not surgically focused. Our objective was to develop surgical case report guidelines. Methods: The CARE statement was used as the basis for a Delphi consensus. The Delphi questionnaire was administered via Google Forms and conducted using standard Delphi methodology. A multidisciplinary group of surgeons and others with expertise in the reporting of case reports were invited to participate. In round one, participants stated how each item of the CARE statement should be changed and what additional items were needed. Revised and additional items from round one were put forward into a further round, where participants voted on the extent of their agreement with each item, using a nine-point Likert scale, as proposed by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) working group. Results: In round one, there was a 64% (38/59) response rate. Following adjustment of the guideline with the incorporation of recommended changes, round two commenced and there was an 83% (49/59) response rate. All but one of the items were approved by the participants, with Likert scores 7–9 awarded by &gt;70% of respondents. The final guideline consists of a 14-item checklist. Conclusion: We present the SCARE Guideline, consisting of a 14-item checklist that will improve the reporting quality of surgical case reports.</p

“The SCARE guidelines: Consensus-based surgical case report guidelines” [Int. J. Surg. 34 (2016) 180–186]((2016) 34 (180–186)(S174391911630303X)(10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.08.014))

© 2016 IJS Publishing Group Ltd The publisher regrets that there was an error in the author list of this paper. The members of the SCARE Group were not tagged as a collaborator group. This has now been corrected. The names of the collaborator group are as follows: Raafat Afifi, Cairo University Raha Al-Ahmadi, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre Joerg Albrecht, John H. Stroger Jr. Hospital of Cook County Abdulrahman Alsawadi, Colchester Hospital University NHS Foundation Trust Jeffrey Aronson, Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford M. Hammad Ather, Aga Khan University Mohammad Bashashati, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center Somprakas Basu, Banarus Hindu University Patrick Bradley, Nottingham University Hospitals Mushtaq Chalkoo, Hyderpora Ben Challacombe, Guy's and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust Trent Cross, James Cook University Laura Derbyshire, North West Deanery Naheed Farooq, Central Manchester University Hospital Foundation Trust Jerome Hoffman, University of California Los Angeles Huseyin Kadioglu, Bezmialem Vakif University Veeru Kasivisvanathan, University College London Boris Kirshtein, Soroka University Medical Center Roberto Klappenbach, Simplemente Evita Hospital Daniel Laskin, Virginia Commonwealth University Diana Miguel, University Hospital Jena James Milburn, Queens Medical Centre Seyed Reza Mousavi, Shohada Medical Center Tajrish Oliver Muensterer, University Medicine Mainz James Ngu, Changi General Hospital Iain Nixon, East Kent University Hospitals Ashraf Noureldin, Cumberland Royal Infirmary Benjamin Perakath, Dr. Gray's Hospital Nicholas Raison, King's College London Kandiah Raveendran, Fatimah Hospital Timothy Sullivan, Minneapolis Heart Institute Achilleas Thoma, McMaster University Mangesh Thorat, Wolfson Institue of Preventative Medicine, Queen Mary University of London Michele Valmasoni, Università di Padova Samuele Massarut, Centro di Riferimento Oncologico Aviano, Italy Anil D'cruz, Tata Memorial Hospital Baskaran Vasudevan, MIOT Hospitals Salvatore Giordano, Turku University Hospital Gaurav Roy, Medanta-The Medicity Donagh Healy, University Hospital Waterford David Machado-Aranda, University of Michigan Bryan Carroll, Eastern Virginia Medical School David Rosin, University of West IndiesThe publisher would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused

The SCARE Statement: Consensus-based surgical case report guidelines

Introduction: Case reports have been a long held tradition within the surgical literature. Reporting guidelines can improve transparency and reporting quality. However, recent consensus-based guidelines for case reports (CARE) are not surgically focused. Our objective was to develop surgical case report guidelines. Methods: The CARE statement was used as the basis for a Delphi consensus. The Delphi questionnaire was administered via Google Forms and conducted using standard Delphi methodology. A multidisciplinary group of surgeons and others with expertise in the reporting of case reports were invited to participate. In round one, participants stated how each item of the CARE statement should be changed and what additional items were needed. Revised and additional items from round one were put forward into a further round, where participants voted on the extent of their agreement with each item, using a nine-point Likert scale, as proposed by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) working group. Results: In round one, there was a 64% (38/59) response rate. Following adjustment of the guideline with the incorporation of recommended changes, round two commenced and there was an 83% (49/59) response rate. All but one of the items were approved by the participants, with Likert scores 7e9 awarded by >70% of respondents. The final guideline consists of a 14-item checklist. Conclusion: We present the SCARE Guideline, consisting of a 14-item checklist that will improve the reporting quality of surgical case reports