{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02349869451697128, 'fraction_numerical': 0.022193211488250653, 'mean_word_length': 5.011764705882353, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The demise of the published case report – is resuscitation necessary?

There is general acceptance that discussion of unusual or atypical individual cases can provide an important element in the education of psychiatrists. Case conferences where such patients are presented, are considered an essential requirement of membership training as well as continuing professional development. However, the published form, the case report, has much lower regard and the number of such reports appearing in print has declined substantially over recent years. A brief survey of the British journal of Psychiatry (BJP) covering the years 1987 and 1997 illustrates this trend. Throughout 1987, 44 out of 267 (16%) of articles were case reports compared with only one out of 167 (0.6%) in 1997. Certainly, over the 10-year period, editorial policy for major medical journals has changed, now requiring patients' written agreement prior to the publication of a report of their problems. Although understandable, this adds to the difficulty of publishing reports about patients who are untraceable. However, this is not the only reason for the decline of the published case report. These other reasons have recently been considered by Charlton & Walston (1998) who also argue in favour of the rehabilitation of the case study as a valid method of scientific endeavour. The main points made by the authors will be reviewed and the question of whether the current editorial policy of the BJP should be challenged in light of this will be considered.