Advertisement

Level 4 Evidence: Clinical Case Series

  • Mitchell I. Kennedy
  • Robert F. LaPrade
Chapter

Abstract

Studies are assessed by the level of evidence presented in their findings and the effects that variable biases may inflict upon the overall validity of the study’s findings; case series represent a Level IV study. Case series are “descriptive,” observational studies that describe general disease characteristics. Case series do not test a hypothesis or make use of a comparison group to determine the efficacy of a treatment; they follow a group of patients over a period of time who have a similar diagnosis or are being treated with the same procedure. Case series aid in analysis of unusual occurrences of a disease. Case series exclusively report the outcomes following a novel treatment procedure for a specific study population and are presented only by descriptive statistics. The variable potential for bias is important to explicitly state for future prospective studies to ascertain validity of the treatment and for future comparisons of outcomes relative to physical function and well-being, most often deemed significant by measures of validity and reliability. In the instance of unusual occurrences of a disease, case series are highly effective for designing hypotheses for future prospective studies, although no hypothesis is tested within the case series itself.

References

  1. 1.
    Audige L, Hanson B, Kopjar B. Issues in the planning and conduct of non-randomised studies. Injury. 2006;37(4):340–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2006.01.026.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bellamy N. Pain assessment in osteoarthritis: experience with the WOMAC osteoarthritis index. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 1989;18(4 Suppl 2):14–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carey TS, Boden SD. A critical guide to case series reports. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;28(15):1631–4.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.BRS.0000083174.84050.E5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dalziel K, Round A, Stein K, Garside R, Castelnuovo E, Payne L. Do the findings of case series studies vary significantly according to methodological characteristics? Health Technol Assess. 2005;9(2):iii–v. 1-146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    DeLee JC, Riley MB, Rockwood CA Jr. Acute posterolateral rotatory instability of the knee. Am J Sports Med. 1983;11(4):199–207.  https://doi.org/10.1177/036354658301100403.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Geeslin AG, LaPrade RF. Outcomes of treatment of acute grade-III isolated and combined posterolateral knee injuries: a prospective case series and surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(18):1672–83.  https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.J.01639.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hanson BP. Designing, conducting and reporting clinical research. A step by step approach. Injury. 2006;37(7):583–94.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2005.06.051.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hartz A, Marsh JL. Methodologic issues in observational studies. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;(413):33–42.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000079325.41006.95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hess DR. Retrospective studies and chart reviews. Respir Care. 2004;49(10):1171–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kooistra B, Dijkman B, Einhorn TA, Bhandari M. How to design a good case series. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(Suppl 3):21–6.  https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.H.01573.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lloyd-Williams F, Mair F, Shiels C, Hanratty B, Goldstein P, Beaton S, Capewell S, Lye M, McDonald R, Roberts C, Connelly D. Why are patients in clinical trials of heart failure not like those we see in everyday practice? J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56(12):1157–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McMaster WC, Sale K, Andersson GB, Bostrom MP, Gebhardt MC, Trippel SB, Clark DC. The conduct of clinical research under the HIPAA Privacy Rule. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(12):2765–70.  https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.F.00794.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Poolman RW, Swiontkowski MF, Fairbank JC, Schemitsch EH, Sprague S, de Vet HC. Outcome instruments: rationale for their use. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(Suppl 3):41–9.  https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.H.01551.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pynsent P, Fairbank J, Carr A. Outcome measures in orthopaedics and orthopaedic trauma. New York: Oxford University Press; 2004.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stannard JP, Brown SL, Farris RC, McGwin G Jr, Volgas DA. The posterolateral corner of the knee: repair versus reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2005;33(6):881–8.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546504271208.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wilson IB, Cleary PD. Linking clinical variables with health-related quality of life. A conceptual model of patient outcomes. JAMA. 1995;273(1):59–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ISAKOS 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mitchell I. Kennedy
    • 1
  • Robert F. LaPrade
    • 2
  1. 1.The Steadman Philippon Research InstituteVailUSA
  2. 2.The Steadman ClinicVailUSA

Personalised recommendations