Table 2 Classification of case reports according to the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist sub-items
Item No | Checklist item description | Yes | No | Unclear | Not applicable | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n*/N† | % | n*/N† | % | n*/N† | % | n‡ | ||
1 | Were patient’s demographic characteristics clearly described? | 26/26 | 100.0% | – | – | – | – | – |
2 | Was the patient’s history clearly described and presented as a timeline? | 18/26 | 69.2% | 8/26 | 30.8% | – | – | – |
3 | Was the current clinical condition of the patient on presentation clearly described? | 26/26 | 100.0% | – | – | – | – | – |
4 | Were diagnostic tests or assessment methods and the results clearly described? | 26/26 | 100.0% | – | – | – | – | – |
5 | Was the intervention(s) or treatment procedure(s) clearly described? | 26/26 | 100.0% | – | – | – | – | – |
6 | Was the post-intervention clinical condition clearly described? | 25/26 | 96.2% | 1/26 | 3.8% | – | – | – |
7 | Were adverse events (harms) or unanticipated events identified and described? | 10/26 | 38.5% | 1/26 | 3.8% | 15/26 | 57.7%$ | – |
8 | Does the case report provide takeaway lessons? | 26/26 | 100.0% | – | – | – | – | – |