Objectives The purpose of this study is to reevaluate the quality of reporting on case reports published in Journal of Sasang Constitutional Medicine (SCM) from June 2018 to December 2021, compared with January 2015 to May 2018.
Methods Case reports were identified by searching from archive on the website of society of Journal of SCM. We assessed the quality of reporting on them based on CAse REport (CARE) guideline.
Results A total of 32 case reports was finally included for the assessment. Overall quality of reporting was improved compared to one of previous study. The median reported rate of ‘sufficiently’ reporting increased by 7.8% from 66.7% to 74.5%, while the one as evaluated ‘not sufficiently’ and ‘not reported’ decreased by 4.1% from 14.8% to 10.7%, and 3.5% from 21.4% to 17.9%, respectively. However, more than 50% of 32 case reports did not still report 5 items about intervention adherence and tolerability(96.9%), diagnostic challenges(93.8%), adverse events(87.5%), timeline(68.8%), and patient’s perspective on interventions(65.6%). Compared to the results of previous study, continuous attention is required for adverse events and changes in intervention in which the unreported rate increased by 18.3% and 6.3%, respectively. In addition, prognostic characteristics, patient’s informed consent, patient’s occupation, and keyword of ‘Case report’ and ‘Sasang (Constitutional) medicine’ should be sufficiently reported in the future.
Conclusions Despite the overall improvement in the quality of reporting, efforts to improve the quality of reporting should be continued by referring to well-reported cases reports previously published in Journal of SCM.