Abstract
Single case reports remain a common form of scholarly submission, particularly from residents, students, and clinician-educators. Many are thoughtfully written and describe interesting clinical problems, yet most do not reach publication. The reason is rarely a lack of effort or clinical insight. More often, it is a problem of scope. Over the past several years, The American Surgeon has worked with authors to transform narrowly focused case reports into case-based reviews that contribute meaningfully to the literature. When this succeeds, a clinical observation shifts from description to synthesis, and from recounting an individual event to offering guidance that informs practice and is cited by others. Making this transition requires a deliberate change in framing. A practical approach begins with defining a broader clinical question and grounding it in current literature. A structured review—particularly of articles and reviews published in the last three to five years—helps focus the discussion on contemporary standards and areas of debate. When the literature includes multiple reports or collected series, an updated systematic review may be a more appropriate strategy. Successful reviews are organized around how surgeons approach clinical problems and make decisions. They address a knowledge gap not yet resolved by existing literature and use an illustrative case to anchor a broader discussion. A case report describes one patient. A publishable paper must speak to many surgeons.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.