Posts Tagged ‘Journal of Medical Case Reports’

Case report of the week: Denying blindness – a case of Anton’s syndrome

September 11, 2009

Anton’s syndrome (sometimes referred to as Anton-Babinski syndrome) is a recognised but rare condition of visual anosognosia, where patients with objective blindness deny their loss of vision.Eye test chart

Dr Maddula and colleagues provide an excellent, comprehensive description of the case of an 83-year-old woman who was found collapsed at her house. Following admission, she was observed “walking into objects and was clearly blind”. “When asked to comment on the doctor’s tie, she was quick with an answer, but one that was incorrect”. Although she would attempt to carry out the activities of daily living herself, “assistance was required to help her finish her meals”. Despite these symptoms, the “patient maintained she was able to ‘see’ things around her”.

The details provided in this case will be valuable to add to the limited literature available regarding this rare condition and could help doctors to correctly diagnose patients presenting with similar symptoms.

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

Anton’s syndrome due to cerebrovascular disease: a case report“, September 2009 issue, Journal of Medical Case Reports.

Lindsay Dytham – Editorial assistant


Cases Network – Image of the month

August 18, 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:

Photograph showing the sigmoid colonic perforation. Figure taken from Joglekar et al., "Sigmoid perforation caused by an ingested chicken bone presenting as right iliac fossa pain mimicking appendicitis: a case report"

Photograph showing the sigmoid colonic perforation. Figure taken from Joglekar et al., "Sigmoid perforation caused by an ingested chicken bone presenting as right iliac fossa pain mimicking appendicitis: a case report"

Sigmoid colonic perforation is an acute surgical emergency.

The patient in this case presented with a 3-day history of colicky generalised abdominal pain, gradually getting worse and eventually localising to the right iliac fossa (classical symptoms of acute appendicitis).

A provisional diagnosis of acute appendicitis was made, and consent was taken for appendicectomy. During the operation, a small (2 mm) perforation was found in the distal sigmoid colon through which a chicken bone was protruding outward.

Fewer than 1% of ingested foreign bodies will perforate the bowel. Although most sharp objects pass without complications, once beyond the oesophagus, they carry an increased risk of complications.

Diagnosis of an intestinal perforation can be difficult and the authors emphasise the need for a high degree of suspicion and awareness on the part of the clinician. They stress that situations such as these highlight the importance of obtaining full consent from the patients; this is particularly important when there is a diagnostic dilemma, as this may have future medico-legal implications. It is important to inform patients about an alternative diagnosis.

Our deputy editor said: “Excellent and intreresting case, also very well written“.

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

Title: “Sigmoid perforation caused by an ingested chicken bone presenting as right iliac fossa pain mimicking appendicitis: a case report”

Authors: Sandeep Joglekar, Iqbal Rajput, Sachin Kamat and Sarah Downey

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: You can even nominate your own case!

Case report of the week: A rare case of primary lung cancer

August 14, 2009

Journal of Medical Case Reports (JMCR) publishes original and interesting case reports that expand medical knowledge and the newly published case by Syed Raza and colleagues, “Primary pulmonary mucinous cystadenocarcinoma presenting as a complex bronchocele: a case report”, is a great article to exemplify our journal’s scope.

There have only been 20 described cases of pulmonary mucinous cystadenocarcinoma (PMC) since it was first reported in 1978. PMC is a distinct but rare variety of lung cancer that, as with most lung cancers, predominantly occurs in older age and with a positive smoking history.

PMC is difficult to diagnose due to the scarcity of cancer cells present within the lesion. In this case the patient presented after collapsing and was diagnosed, based on CT findings, with a complex bronchocele (a dilation of the bronchus).  The patient went on to undergo open lung biopsy and histopathological testing that confirmed the diagnosis of PMC. This case is important in highlighting the need to consider primary PMC when investigating a suspicious bronchocele.

This case report is also excellent for its presentation of imaging and histological findings. Figure 3 from the article (below) is the view from the bronchoscopy that revealed the soft tissue lesion in the bronchus. It provides us with a very interesting insight into the investigation of such conditions.

Bronchoscopic view of Bronchoscopic view of the carina with the mass protruding from the right upper lobe bronchus

Bronchoscopic view. Figure taken from Raza et al., "Primary pulmonary mucinous cystadenocarcinoma presenting as a complex bronchocele: a case report" in the August issue of JMCR

The deputy editor described this report as “an extremely interesting and well written case, that is most suitable for JMCR” . Visit the journal to view the full article of this case and more in the August 2009 issue.

Lindsay Dytham – Editorial Assistant, Cases Network

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