2020
DOI: 10.13048/jkm.20019
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation of the Quality of Case Reports from the Journal of Korean Medicine Based on the CARE Guidelines

Abstract: Objectives: A case report is a detailed report of the symptoms, signs, diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of an individual patient. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the quality of case reports from the Journal of Korean Medicine by the CARE (CAse REport) Guideline. Methods: Case reports published in the Journal of Korean Medicine from January 2016 to March 2020 were searched from Oriental Medicine Advanced Searching Integrated System (OASIS). We assessed the quality of reporting based on CARE (CAse RE… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

1
1
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
1
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Additionally, a majority of articles lacked sufficient reporting of keywords. These findings align with previous research ( 22 , 36 ), except for the item of keyword reporting being adequate in prior studies. Well-written and well-presented case reports have the potential to detect early warning signs of prospective benefits and drawbacks.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Additionally, a majority of articles lacked sufficient reporting of keywords. These findings align with previous research ( 22 , 36 ), except for the item of keyword reporting being adequate in prior studies. Well-written and well-presented case reports have the potential to detect early warning signs of prospective benefits and drawbacks.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…The tools and numbers calculated for measuring the quality of the articles had a ratio scale. Each item was scored on a scale of 0 to 2: 0 for no description, 1 for inadequate description, and 2 for adequate description ( 22 ). All items were weighted equally, and any items that did not apply to a specific study were labeled as inapplicable.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%