Article Text

other Versions

Download PDFPDF
Making a case for case reports in the age of the pandemic
  1. Samuel Smith1,
  2. Shalisa Maisrikrod2,
  3. Ashly Vu3
  1. 1Department of Anaesthetics and Peri-operative Medicine, Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, Herston, Queensland, Australia
  2. 2Department of Infectious Disease, Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, Herston, Queensland, Australia
  3. 3Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Canberra Hospital, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Dr Samuel Smith, Centre for Medical Officer Recruitment and Education, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Herston QLD 4029, Queensland, Australia; samuel.smith2{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

In these uncertain times dealing with the COVID-19, it is important for medical journals to adapt their publication processes to encourage timely information sharing for frontline clinicians.1 One example is the increased publication of relevant case reports, including those which reported some of the earliest cases of COVID-19 in Wuhan.2 However, in recent decades, case reports have fallen out of favour with many medical journals.3 With their resurgence in the face of this new threat, we must reconsider the relevance of this much maligned form of …

View Full Text


  • Contributors SS was the lead author of this letter with overall responsibility and topic conception. All authors contributed equally to the writing, refinement and editing of the letter.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.