CARE · Clinical Case Reports

The CARE checklist, item by item.

CARE is the reporting standard for clinical case reports. Thirteen items cover everything from the title and de-identified patient information to the timeline, diagnostic assessment, therapeutic intervention, follow-up, and informed consent. This is a complete walkthrough of what each item requires — and the items editors check before the case is even sent to review.

Last updated: July 25, 2026
The guideline

What CARE is.

CARE — from CAse REport — is the international reporting guideline for clinical case reports. It exists because case reports fail in predictable ways: a chronology the reader cannot reconstruct, diagnostic reasoning that is asserted rather than shown, interventions described without dose or duration, outcomes reported without follow-up intervals, and consent for publication left unstated. CARE specifies the minimum a case report must contain for it to be clinically useful to the next physician who sees a similar patient — and publishable in a journal that takes reporting seriously.

The CARE statement and its 13-item checklist were developed during 2011–2012 by a group of clinicians, researchers, and journal editors, and presented at the 2013 International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication. An Explanation & Elaboration document followed in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology in 2017. Unlike CONSORT or PRISMA, CARE has not been re-versioned — the 2013 checklist is the current standard. It is maintained by the CARE Group (care-statement.org), listed by the EQUATOR Network, and endorsed by most journals that publish case reports.

CARE applies to any clinical case report — a narrative account of a single patient, or a small number of patients described individually. Surgical case reports have a dedicated extension (SCARE 2023), and surgical case series have PROCESS 2023. If your report aggregates patients with a comparison group, it is no longer a case report — it is a cohort or case-control study, and you need STROBE. If you randomized anyone, you need CONSORT.

The checklist

CARE, item by item.

The 13 items run in manuscript order — title and abstract, introduction, the case presentation (patient information through follow-up), discussion, patient perspective, and consent. These are the topics each item asks you to cover — what is required, and why editors care.
01
Title
Identify the diagnosis or intervention of primary focus, followed by the words "case report." The title is the one field every database indexes — a title that hides the design ("An unusual presentation of a common problem") costs the report its findability and is flagged by editors immediately. Name the condition, name the design.
02
Key words
Provide two to five key words that identify the diagnoses or interventions in the report — including "case report" itself. Align them with MeSH vocabulary where possible: key words are what indexing services and other clinicians searching the literature actually use to find the case.
03
Abstract
Structured or unstructured per the journal, the abstract must cover four things: what is unique about this case and what it adds to the literature; the patient's main symptoms and important clinical findings; the main diagnoses, therapeutic interventions, and outcomes; and the principal take-away lesson. An abstract that narrates the story but never states what the case adds is the most common abstract failure.
04
Introduction
One or two paragraphs summarizing why this case is unique, with references to the relevant medical literature. The introduction is not a mini-review of the condition — it exists to establish the gap this case fills: a novel presentation, an unreported drug reaction, a diagnostic pitfall, an unexpected treatment response.
05
Patient information
De-identified demographic and other patient-specific information; the patient's primary concerns and symptoms; medical, family, and psychosocial history including relevant genetic information; and relevant past interventions with their outcomes. De-identification is a floor, not a courtesy — direct identifiers and identifying combinations (rare condition + named hospital + exact dates) must be removed or generalized.
06
Clinical findings
Describe the significant physical-examination findings and other important clinical findings. Pertinent negatives count: the examination findings that were absent are often what make the diagnostic reasoning in item 8 auditable. Findings should be specific enough for a clinician to reconstruct the examination.
07
Timeline
Present the historical and current information from this episode of care organized as a timeline — a figure or table with dates or intervals for symptom onset, presentation, diagnostic milestones, interventions, and follow-up. The timeline is the most distinctive CARE item and the most frequently missing one: prose scattered with "eventually" and "several months later" does not satisfy it.
08
Diagnostic assessment
Four parts: the diagnostic methods used (examination, laboratory testing, imaging, surveys); the diagnostic challenges encountered (access, financial, cultural, or language barriers); the diagnosis reached — including the other diagnoses considered and how they were excluded; and prognosis where applicable, such as staging in oncology. A stated diagnosis without the differential that was considered is asserted, not shown.
09
Therapeutic intervention
Report the types of intervention (pharmacologic, surgical, preventive, self-care), the administration of each — dosage, strength, duration, frequency — and any changes to the intervention, with the rationale for each change. "The patient was started on antibiotics" is not reportable information; drug, dose, route, and duration are.
10
Follow-up and outcomes
Report clinician-assessed and, where available, patient-assessed outcomes; important follow-up diagnostic and other test results; intervention adherence and tolerability, and how these were assessed; and any adverse or unanticipated events. An outcome without a follow-up interval ("the patient recovered") is uninterpretable — state when, relative to the timeline, each outcome was measured.
11
Discussion
Four parts: a scientific discussion of the strengths and limitations of this case report; discussion of the relevant medical literature, with references; the scientific rationale for any conclusions — including an assessment of possible causes; and the primary take-away lessons in a single concluding paragraph. This is where case reports most often overreach: a single case can generate a hypothesis about causation, but it cannot establish one.
12
Patient perspective
The patient should share their perspective on the treatment they received, in one to two paragraphs — in their own words where possible; a parent or guardian may provide it when the patient cannot. This item is unique to CARE among the major reporting guidelines, and it is routinely omitted. Journals that enforce CARE will return the manuscript for it.
13
Informed consent
Did the patient give informed consent for publication? State it explicitly, and be prepared to provide the signed form if the journal requests it. Consent for publication is separate from de-identification and separate from consent to treatment. If the patient has died, consent is sought from next of kin; for minors, from a parent or guardian. Without this statement, most journals will not send the report to review at all.
The contrast

Adequate vs. inadequate reporting.

Three of the CARE items most consistently missed in submitted case reports. Each shows the version that fails review next to the version that passes — with the reasoning an editor or reviewer would use.
The timeline
Inadequate
"The patient had been treated conservatively elsewhere for several months before presenting to our clinic. Imaging was obtained, and after further deterioration she eventually underwent surgery. She recovered well."
Adequate
"Timeline (Figure 1): Day 0 — presentation to our clinic with six months of progressive right hip pain, previously managed with physiotherapy and NSAIDs. Day 3 — MRI demonstrated a 4 cm lytic lesion of the femoral neck. Day 10 — CT-guided core biopsy. Day 17 — histopathology confirmed giant cell tumor of bone. Day 24 — extended curettage with adjuvant burring and cementation. Week 6 — mobilizing with full weight-bearing; radiographs showed stable cementation. Month 12 — asymptomatic, no radiographic recurrence."
Why it mattersCARE Item 7 requires the episode of care organized as a timeline — dates or explicit intervals for onset, presentation, diagnostic milestones, interventions, and follow-up. The inadequate version cannot be reconstructed: "several months," "eventually," and "recovered well" hide the diagnostic interval, the treatment latency, and the follow-up duration — precisely the information a clinician reading the case needs. The adequate version anchors every event to Day 0, which also makes the outcomes in Item 10 interpretable. Reviewers reconstruct the chronology first; when it cannot be reconstructed, the case fails.
Informed consent for publication
Inadequate
"All patient details have been anonymized to protect confidentiality."
Adequate
"Written informed consent was obtained from the patient for publication of this case report and the accompanying images. A copy of the written consent is available for review by the Editor-in-Chief of this journal on request."
Why it mattersCARE Item 13 requires consent for publication, stated explicitly. The inadequate version conflates two different obligations: de-identification (part of Item 5) protects identity; consent respects the patient's right to decide whether their case is published at all. Anonymization is not a substitute — a patient can often recognize their own case, and journals know it. The adequate version states who consented, to what (report and images), and that the form exists and can be produced. If the patient has died, state that consent was obtained from next of kin; for minors, from a parent or guardian. Most journals will not send a case report to review without this statement.
Causal language in the discussion
Inadequate
"This case proves that the drug causes acute liver injury, and it should be avoided in all patients with pre-existing hepatic conditions."
Adequate
"The temporal association — enzyme elevation beginning nine days after drug initiation with normalization within six weeks of withdrawal (positive dechallenge) — together with the exclusion of viral, autoimmune, and biliary causes, supports the drug as the probable cause (Naranjo score 6; RUCAM 7, probable). Rechallenge was not attempted. A single case cannot establish causality: we report it to add to the pharmacovigilance signal, and clinicians may consider earlier enzyme monitoring in patients with pre-existing hepatic disease."
Why it mattersCARE Item 11 requires the scientific rationale for any conclusions — including an assessment of possible causes — alongside the strengths and limitations of the case. The inadequate version makes a population-level claim ("all patients") from n = 1 and uses "proves," the word case reports can never earn. The adequate version shows the causal reasoning (temporality, dechallenge, exclusion of alternatives), grades it with structured tools, states what was not done (rechallenge), and sizes the conclusion to the evidence: a signal and a monitoring suggestion, not a contraindication. This is the difference between a case report that informs practice and one that misleads it.
The check

How PeerReviewAI evaluates CARE compliance.

CARE compliance is checked on every case report submitted for AI Peer Review ($29) or Author Review ($79) — included in both, no add-on required.
01
Auto-detected as a case report
Upload your manuscript and a case report is identified automatically. CARE is used as the reporting checklist — you do not have to choose it. Surgical case reports and case series are distinguished from comparative designs that belong under STROBE.
02
Item-by-item qualitative assessment
Every CARE item is evaluated against your manuscript text. The output is a qualitative judgment per item — adequate, incomplete, or missing. The items most often absent from case reports (the timeline, the patient perspective, the consent statement) get explicit attention.
03
Chronology and consent surfaced
The review checks that the episode of care can be reconstructed from the text — onset, presentation, diagnosis, intervention, and follow-up intervals — and that a consent-for-publication statement is present. Causal claims in the discussion that outrun single-case evidence are flagged with suggested rewording.
04
Included in Peer Review and Author Review
CARE compliance checking is part of Peer Review ($29) and Author Review ($79) — no add-on required. Peer Review reports a condensed compliance summary: the guideline applied, counts of adequate, incomplete, and missing items, and a specific note on every gap. Author Review presents the full per-item checklist table, plus a compliance audit against your target journal's author instructions. The $2.99 Essentials tier is a journal-club briefing and does not include checklist compliance.
Related guidelines

If your study is not a case report.

CARE · checked on every review

Check your case report against CARE.

FAQ

Questions, answered.

Don't see yours? Email us — we read every one.