How to review a video case report

Headshot_Ryan LawWritten by Ryan Law, DO, from the Division of Gastroenterology at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.

The review process for video case reports is somewhat different than standard manuscript submissions. The focus is less on critiquing statistical methods and result interpretation and more on evaluating the displayed case or case series demonstrating a novel endoscopic technique. The WANNT criteria were developed to identify the critical aspects of a video case report and can be utilized to perform superior peer reviews.

Is the video case report well constructed?

Video case report submissions typically include a brief manuscript to describe the presented case, 1-2 key endoscopic images, and a short (3-6 minutes) video demonstrating the technique. The accompanying images should be high-resolution (at least 300dpi) and identify the features that distinguish the presented case. The video component is the centerpiece of the submission and should contain high-quality endoscopic footage with audio commentary describing the technique. The video should be free of distracting transitions and/or variation in audio quality. Most importantly, the submission should explicitly follow journal guidelines.

Is the accompanying manuscript articulate?

The manuscript should be well written and free of significant grammar and spelling errors. Minimal typos should be tolerated by the reviewer, if the content is otherwise significant, as small errors can be addressed in the copyedit stage of production. Video case reports generally have a limited word count, thus the written report should contain only pertinent information to introduce, summarize, and identify the relevance of the video case report. Extraneous details should be removed from the written report and added to the video as necessary.

Is the presented technique novel?

When reviewing a video case report, reviewers should ask themselves one major question: does this case describe an interesting technique that will contribute to available literature? Video case reports should be published to showcase endoscopic ingenuity or provide step-by-step “how to” endoscopic instruction. For example, there is little to no value in publishing a case report on an already well-published technique or management strategy, unless the current submission provides something beyond what has already been described, in terms of novelty or quality.

Is the submission neutral?

Video case reports of novel endoscopic procedures often demonstrate specific endoscopic devices or accessories required during the procedure. The authors should make every attempt to minimize commercial bias throughout the entirety of the submitted material. Nearly every device or accessory can be adequately described in “generic” terms.

Do the authors provide a teaching point?

The authors should provide a clear teaching point within their submission, either in the accompanying manuscript or the video component. The teaching point can focus on the overarching management strategy of a particular clinical scenario or provide specific technical details critical to successfully performing the presented technique. This addition to video case report provides the readership/viewership a “take-home” message that they can utilize in their clinical practice going forward.

The WANNT criteria provide a basic framework to systematically evaluate all video case reports in the same manner to identify high-quality submissions that will contribute positively to the published endoscopic literature.

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s