Posts Tagged ‘Cases Journal’

Case report of the week: bloody tears

September 21, 2009

The shocking case of a child who cries tears of blood every day was featured in newspapers a few weeks ago. The mother of the patient complained that “Every doctor tells us they’ve never seen anything like this before in all their many years of being a doctor”.

Last week, Cases Journal published a case report detailing the condition of a young girl who suffered subconjunctival hemorrhage, also leading to bloody tears.

An important lesson could be learnt from the publication of this case report. This gives us a poignant reminder of the central role that case reports can play in informing the medical community.

Read the case report in full here.

Bloody tears and hematohidrosis in a patient of PF3 dysfunction: a case report” – Kusum L Mishra

by Lindsay Dytham – Editorial Assistant


Heart rate monitored hypothermia and drowning following a kayaking accident

August 20, 2009

Published in Cases Journal this week is the report of a 48-year old male Norwegian kayaker who capsized when paddling alone around an island in a Norwegian fjord. After managing to call for help on his mobile phone the kayaker lost consciousness and was found fifty minutes later by air ambulance floating, prone with his head submerged in sea water and was suffering from profound hypothermia with cardiopulmonary arrest. The kayaker was wearing a personal heart rate monitor/pulse watch.

Following cardiopulmonary resuscitation and warming, spontaneous circulation was achieved 3h 27 m after cardiac arrest occurred. The patient spent 21 days in intensive care but was discharged from hospital 32 days after the accident with impaired short term memory and spatial planning abilities. A year after the accident the patient had returned to a normal cognitive ability.

Aside from the patients lucky escape, this report is made particularly interesting by the collection of data from the patient’s mobile phone log, GPS data from the patient, GPS used in the helicopter, the patients pulse watch and medical records, allowing the authors to provide an interesting and detailed timeline of the patients heart rate as the incident unfolds.


Heart rate data - The graph shows the complete data of recorded heart rate for the whole kayak trip

Read the case in full here.

Title: “Heart rate monitored hypothermia and drowning in a 48-year-old man. survival without sequelae: a case report

Authors: Fredrik Koller Lund, Johan G R Torgersen and Hans Kristian Flaatten

Richard Sear – Editorial Assistant – Cases Network

Cases Network – Image of the month

July 17, 2009

Every month we select an image from Cases Journal or the Journal of Medical Case Reports (JMCR) that we feel is that little bit extra special.

Below is our choice for this month:

Metastatic tubulopapillary renal cell carcinoma (TPRCC)

Metastatic tubulopapillary renal cell carcinoma (TPRCC)

The patient in this case was diagnosed with tubulopapillary renal cell carnicoma (TPRCC) – the second most common histologic subtype of kidney cancer. On first presentation, the tumour was confined to the pelvis, but two years later, he presented with this rapidly growing mass, located on the midline anterior chest wall. A biopsy of the mass confirmed the diagnosis of metastatic TPRCC.

After three months of treatment, the patient also developed severe headaches and blurred vision and was diagnosed with choroidal metastasis. Choroidal metastiasis from TPRCC is currently very exceptional.

The authors recommend a high index of suspicion and adequate investigation of patients with visual complaints and history of renal carcinoma.

For all the clinical details, read the full case report here.

Title: “Choroidal metastasis from tubulopapillary renal cell carcinoma: a case report”

Authors: Ibrahim Elghissassi, Hanane Inrhaoun, Nabil Ismaili and Hassan Errihani

To see a selection of our previous ‘Image of the month’ choices, visit our facebook site here.

EmailFor your chance to nominate a case report for the ‘Image of the month’, simply email us at:

Cases Network: The inside story – peer review 2

May 22, 2009

Following our look at the peer-review process for Cases Journal last week, now it’s time to see how it works in the Journal of Medical Case Reports (JMCR). Here you can find out exactly what is happening when a manuscript is under review.

When a manuscript is correctly formatted for JMCR, we will assign a suitable Associate Editor (AE) from our editorial board. Our AEs have a very important role in JMCR. We aim to invite an AE who specialises in the medical field relevant to the manuscript.  For JMCR we require two reviewer reports on a manuscript before a first decision is made. We ask the AE to suggest up to five appropriate peer-reviewers to assess each submission and they sometimes provide one of the two required reports themselves.

Reviewers are invited to complete a short online report. After logging in to our website reviewers confirm their ability to review and can download the manuscript. They are asked first to identify what the ‘type’ of case report is, for example, ‘unexpected or unusual presentations of a disease’ or ‘an unexpected event in the course of observing or treating a patient’. This helps us to check that each manuscript meets the criteria for JMCR.

There are then 10 quick yes/no questions (a few more than in Cases Journal) to answer:

Thinking1. Has the case been reported coherently?

2. Is the case report authentic?

3. Is the case report ethical?

4. Is there any missing information that you think must be added before publication?

5. Is this case worth reporting?

6. Is the case report persuasive?

7. Does the case report have explanatory value?

8. Does the case report have diagnostic value?

9. Will the case report make a difference to clinical practice?

10. Is the anonymity of the patient protected?

Reviewers can then provide additional comments for the authors. The reviewer is also asked to provide a statement declaring whether or not they have any competing interests.

After completing the review form and leaving any useful comments to the authors, the reviewer finally selects a recommendation for the next step:

1. Accept submission

2. Revisions required

3. Resubmit for review

4. Resubmit elsewhere

5. Decline submission

6. See comments

When two review reports have been completed for a manuscript, if any revisions are suggested by the peer-reviewers, their comments are sent to the corresponding author to allow them to submit a revised manuscript. Following this resubmission, the assigned AE is asked to make the first decision:

1. Accept

2. Send back to reviewers’ for re-review

3. Reject

Peer review decisions*Author tip* – Reviewers’ comments are very valuable to us when making editorial decisions. Be sure to address any issues they raise when revising a manuscript and explain any changes that you make, either using notes within your manuscript or in a separate cover letter.

Re-reviews, AE decisions and author revisions continue until the AE is either happy to accept the manuscript or unfortunately has to recommend that the manuscript is unsuitable for JMCR.

When an AE recommends accepting a manuscript, it is then forwarded to one of our five Deputy Editors (DE). We work very closely with the DEs and rely greatly on their contribution to the editorial process. The DE is responsible for providing a final decision: a) Accept and publish; b) Reject; c) Reject and transfer to Cases Journal; d) Major revisions; e) Minor revisions. With option (c), a manuscript can be transferred directly for publication in Cases Journal without the need for any further review.

Peer review decisions

*Author tip* – If your submitted manuscript is declined from JMCR, remember Cases Journal, where your case may be more appropriate for publication.

When this thorough review process is complete, manuscripts are passed on to a member of the editorial team for formatting and every manuscript is professionally copyedited.

Before being passed on to our production team, all manuscripts are viewed by the Editor-in-Chief, Professor Michael Kidd, to ensure that every publication in JMCR is over the best possible quality.

To find out about the final production stages before publication of manuscripts in Cases Journal and JMCR, keep watching our blog for the next in our ‘Inside Story’ series.

Cases network: The inside story

Lindsay Dytham and Richard Sear

Editorial Assistants – Cases Network

Cases Network: The inside story – peer review

May 14, 2009

Last time in our ‘Inside story’ blog series, we described what happens when you first submit your case report to our journals and the importance of formatting your manuscript correctly.

So what happens to your manuscript once the formatting is acceptable? This is the time when the peer-review process can begin. This process differs slightly for Cases Journal and Journal of Medical Case Reports, and this week we will concentrate on Cases Journal.

Each correctly formatted manuscript is sent to a member of our editorial board. We pair up the subject of the manuscript to the speciality of the ed board member and invite them to fill out a short online report. After logging into the website the reviewer will be asked to answer 6 simple questions about the manuscript:

1. Is the manuscript understandable?

2. Is it ethical?

3. Is there any information missing?

4. Could this be this first report of its kind?

5. Is it authentic?

6. Comments to authors:

green tick 2*Author Tip* – It is important to note that a manuscript doesn’t have to be the first of its kind in order to be published. Cases Journal will publish any report that is understandable, ethical, authentic, and includes all information essential to its interpretation.

After completing the review form and leaving any useful comments to the author and/or editor, we ask the reviewer to make a suggestion on the next step:

1. Accept submission

2. Revisions required

3. Resubmit for review

4. Decline submission

Once a manuscript is accepted it is passed on to a member of the editorial team for formatting, before being passed onto the production team…. but more about the world of production at a later date.

We’ll be posting again next week to give you the inside story on peer review for Journal of Medical Case Reports.

Cases Network: The inside story

April 24, 2009
Cases Network: The Inside Story

Cases Network: The Inside Story

Here at Cases Network we feel it is about time that we revealed a little more about the editorial side of the submission process to Cases Journal and Journal of Medical Case Reports (JMCR). Over the next few weeks we will publish a blog series to give you an insight into the glitz, the glamour and the ins and outs of taking a manuscript from initial submission through to publication. There will be plenty of insider tips along the way to help you to become a successfully published author with Cases Network!

One of the unique aspects of Cases Network is just how quickly we aim to give authors our first decision on their manuscript; from just 3 weeks for Cases Journal and 6-8 weeks for JMCR. We are grateful to have dedicated and prestigious editorial boards who, together with ourselves the in-house editors, work very hard to quickly assign manuscripts to appropriate reviewers and give prompt and thorough feedback to our authors.

However, very occasionally things don’t run as smoothly and efficiently as we would like. One of the most common problems causing a delay to our first decision is the submission of manuscripts that are in the wrong format or with missing sections (*see our tip below*).

Our first step following submission of a manuscript is to check that it is suitable for the journal it is submitted to. We check that it fits our criteria and conforms to the journal style according to our specific guidelines, which means the inclusion of some critical sections such as ‘patient’s consent’ and a ‘declaration of competing interests’. These are explained in our Instructions for authors for Cases J and JMCR. If there are any problems, we simply ask authors to submit a revised version. Only when manuscripts are formatted correctly can we then begin the peer review process.

*Author tip* – check the format of your manuscript before submitting. Why not download our manuscript template for Cases J or JMCR as well?

Keep checking here for the next ‘Inside Story’ blog!

Lindsay and Richard

Editorial Assistants – Cases Network