Case reports and the fight against cancer

Some of the earliest case reports describing individual patients afflicted with cancer can be traced all the way back to the papyrus records of Ancient Egyptian medicine of approximately 1600 B.C.. Throughout the centuries physicians have continued the practice of writing case reports. Case reporting has provided significant advances in the knowledge of cancer on several fronts. It is without question that case reports do not replace well designed randomized clinical trials in advancing medical knowledge about cancerous diseases. However, case reports have their unique role in evidence-based medicine and often constitute the first line of evidence. This editorial reviews the many useful aspects of case reports and describes specific reports known to have revolutionized cancer management. Journal of Medical Case Reports is committed to publish well written case reports from around the world and be a source of inspiration for clinicians and scientists about newer research directions

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration

In this explanatory and elaboration document Mattias Egger and colleagues provide the meaning and rationale of each checklist item on the STROBE Statement

Inclusion and Analysis of Older Adults in RCTs

Surgical oncolog

Preferred reporting items for studies mapping onto preference-based outcome measures: The MAPS statement

'Mapping' onto generic preference-based outcome measures is increasingly being used as a means of generating health utilities for use within health economic evaluations. Despite publication of technical guides for the conduct of mapping research, guidance for the reporting of mapping studies is currently lacking. The MAPS (MApping onto Preference-based measures reporting Standards) statement is a new checklist, which aims to promote complete and transparent reporting of mapping studies. The primary audiences for the MAPS statement are researchers reporting mapping studies, the funders of the research, and peer reviewers and editors involved in assessing mapping studies for publication. A de novo list of 29 candidate reporting items and accompanying explanations was created by a working group comprised of six health economists and one Delphi methodologist. Following a two-round, modified Delphi survey with representatives from academia, consultancy, health technology assessment agencies and the biomedical journal editorial community, a final set of 23 items deemed essential for transparent reporting, and accompanying explanations, was developed. The items are contained in a user friendly 23 item checklist. They are presented numerically and categorised within six sections, namely: (i) title and abstract; (ii) introduction; (iii) methods; (iv) results; (v) discussion; and (vi) other. The MAPS statement is best applied in conjunction with the accompanying MAPS explanation and elaboration document. It is anticipated that the MAPS statement will improve the clarity, transparency and completeness of reporting of mapping studies. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the MAPS statement is being co-published by eight health economics and quality of life journals, and broader endorsement is encouraged. The MAPS working group plans to assess the need for an update of the reporting checklist in five years' time. This statement was published jointly in Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Journal of Medical Economics, Medical Decision Making, PharmacoEconomics, and Quality of Life Research

Antidepressant Response in Major Depressive Disorder: A Meta-Regression Comparison of Randomized Controlled Trials and Observational Studies

To compare response to antidepressants between randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational trials.Published and unpublished studies (from 1989 to 2009) were searched for by 2 reviewers on Medline, the Cochrane library, Embase, clinicaltrials.gov, Current Controlled Trial, bibliographies and by mailing key organisations and researchers. RCTs and observational studies on fluoxetine or venlafaxine in first-line treatment for major depressive disorder reported in English, French or Spanish language were included in the main analysis. Studies including patients from a wider spectrum of depressive disorders (anxious depression, minor depressive episode, dysthymia) were added in a second analysis. The main outcome was the pre-/post-treatment difference on depression scales standardised to 100 (17-item or 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression or Montgomery and Åsberg Rating Scale) in each study arm. A meta-regression was conducted to adjust the comparison between observational studies and RCTs on treatment type, study characteristics and average patient characteristics. 12 observational studies and 109 RCTs involving 6757 and 11035 patients in 12 and 149 arms were included in the main analysis. Meta-regression showed that the standardised treatment response in RCTs is greater by a magnitude of 4.59 (2.61 to 6.56). Study characteristics were related to standardised treatment response, positively (study duration, number of follow-up assessments, outpatients versus inpatients, per protocol analysis versus intention to treat analysis) or negatively (blinded design, placebo design). At patient level, response increased with baseline severity and decreased with age. Results of the second analysis were consistent with this.Response to antidepressants is greater in RCTs than in observational studies. Observational studies should be considered as a necessary complement to RCTs

Strengthening the Reporting of Genetic Risk Prediction Studies: The GRIPS Statement

Cecile Janssens and colleagues present the GRIPS Statement, a checklist to help strengthen the reporting of genetic risk prediction studies

How to write an ICS/IUGA conference abstract

Contains fulltext : 88292.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)INTRODUCTION: This article aims to condense the lectures and discussions from workshops on good reporting at IUGA Como 2009 and ICS San Francisco 2009, providing practical advice for the novice researcher summarising their data for the first time. CONCLUSIONS: Drafting an abstract can be a time consuming process. Formal guidance, such as CONSORT and STROBE, exists for the kinds of information that should be included regarding almost all designs of clinical trials. Follow the abstract submission rules closely to avoid outright rejection. Plan to highlight the novelty, scientific merit and clinical impact of the work. Try not to overstate the importance of the findings. Do not forget to publish the work in a peer reviewed journal.1 mei 201