This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit an eLetter
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Procopio, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Procopio, M.
The British Journal of Psychiatry (2005) 187: 91
© 2005 The Royal College of Psychiatrists


Correspondence

Publication of case reports

M. Procopio

Priory Hospital, Hove BN3 4FH, UK. E-mail:marcoprocopio00{at}hotmail.com

EDITED BY KHALIDA ISMAIL

Several letters advocating the reinstatement of case reports in the Journal have been published recently (Williams, 2004; Enoch, 2005). I believe that it would be useful to make a distinction between two substantially different kinds of such reports. The first group includes discussions of challenging cases with difficult clinical implications and interesting phenomenological descriptions, with the only aim to improve the readers' diagnostic and therapeutic skills. Typical examples are the 'Grand Rounds' that used to be published in the BMJ. I agree with Dr Enoch and Dr Williams' point of view and I would personally welcome the publication of these case reports in the Journal.

However, another group of reports have a substantially different objective. Their aim is to allow clinicians to share their anecdotal experience of unusual outcomes in clinical practice. These reports are a self-selected group of unlikely cases because only 'man bites dog' stories reach publication. The conclusions of sophisticated randomised trials with good statistical analyses are difficult enough to interpret because of biases such as unmasking, file drawer problems, etc. Anecdotal care reports can be confusing and misleading because the subjective data are often interpreted as objective, creating even more noise where the signal is already faint. The publication of a one-off case report of an adverse effect can profoundly influence clinical practice on the basis of a freak event. Infamous examples include the widely followed recommendation not to use haloperidol and lithium in combination (Cohen & Cohen, 1974) and the reluctance to use intravenous thiamine for the prevention of Korsakoff syndrome on the basis of a few reports of adverse reactions (Thomson & Cook, 1997). The cases of the hundreds of thousands of people who have been safely and successfully treated with these medications are not published because no one wants to state the obvious. I believe that the past editor's decision to move on from publishing this latter group of case reports was extremely wise.

REFERENCES

  1. Cohen, W. J. & Cohen, N. H. (1974) Lithium carbonate, haloperidol, and irreversible brain damage. JAMA, 230, 1283 -1287.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Enoch, M. D. (2005) Case reports (letter). British Journal of Psychiatry, 186, 169.[Free Full Text]
  3. Thomson, A. D. & Cook, C. C. (1997) Parenteral thiamine and Wernicke's encephalopathy: the balance of risks and perception of concern. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 32, 207 -209.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  4. Williams, D. D. R. (2004) In defence of the case report (letter). British Journal of Psychiatry, 184, 84.[Free Full Text]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
JRSMHome page
A. Pitman
Policy on the prevention of suicidal behaviour; one treatment for all may be an unrealistic expectation
J R Soc Med, October 1, 2007; 100(10): 461 - 464.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Psychiatr. Bull.Home page
V. Pinfold, J. Smith, and D. Shiers
Audit of early intervention in psychosis service development in England in 2005
Psychiatr. Bull., January 1, 2007; 31(1): 7 - 10.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit an eLetter
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Procopio, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Procopio, M.