Introduction Clinical case reports enrich medical literature by presenting rare medical issues. However, case reports that do not adhere to a standard template often lack rigor and limit their usefulness in clinical guidance. Several guidelines for reporting case reports have been structured, while further improvements are still required. The current guideline (CaReL) aims to enhance the comprehensiveness of case reports by integrating a detailed literature review. Methods In total, 56 researchers were selected based on specific publication criteria for structuring the guidelines. The guideline development was based on a two-step consensus process, including a literature review and survey distribution. Responses underwent scrutiny to ensure reliability and validity. Content validity was assessed, with revisions made to achieve a content validity index exceeding 0.78. The guideline's feasibility and effectiveness were evaluated by pilot testing, with feedback incorporated for finalization, ensuring the robustness and practicality of the guideline. Results The CaReL guidelines can improve the quality of case reports through a comprehensive checklist with an increased emphasis on literature review. In addition to traditional sections with their subsections discussed in previous guidelines, the checklist also focuses on literature review in the abstract and discussion. Conclusion The CaReL guidelines offer a comprehensive structure for documenting case reports. They highlight the importance of incorporating a literature review to better introduce medical issues to readers and scholars and embedding reported cases into the current scientific state of the art. Implementing these guidelines can promote knowledge sharing and improve patient care

Background: Despite being very infectious and fatal, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) lacks a reliable and practical biomarker to assess how serious it will be. Aim: The current study aims to conclude the possibility of C-reactive protein (CRP) level serving as a biomarker for early prediction of COVID-19 infections. Methods: In this retrospective cross-sectional study, 88 people participated who were infected with COVID-19, aged from 25 to 79 years old. Compare the CRP test range of all samples from patients who visited the hospital between January and April 2022. Results: All participants were confirmed to have COVID-19 through nasopharyngeal swab analysis and real-time polymerase chain reaction real-time polymerase chain reaction testing. Results showed that the majority of infected individuals had elevated CRP levels. A P-value of less than 0.05 indicated a significant difference in CRP levels between alive and dead patients. No significant difference in CRP levels was found between male and female patients. The average CRP level of deceased patients was 137.79 mg/l, while the average CRP level of survivors was 14.37 mg/l. The median interquartile range of deceased patients was also found to be significantly higher compared to survivors. Conclusion: In conclusion, serum CRP levels potentially predict the severity and development of sickness in patients with COVID-19 infections.

Background: Rhinoplasty is conducted to address both cosmetic and functional objectives. It is not merely a cosmetic procedure, as it frequently aims to improve function by enhancing nasal breathing and removing congenital or acquired obstructions. The current study aims to determine the functional, cosmetic, and psychological outcomes of rhinoplasties. Methods: This is a descriptive cross-sectional study. The data were collected using an interview and an online Google form. A chi-square test was used to determine the relationship between qualitative variables and quantitative variables using frequency, percentage, and mean for quantitative variables. Each variable’s P value is used to detect statistical significance. The significance level was set at a P value of less than 0.05. Results: Of the 234 patients enrolled in this study, 69.2% were women, whereas 30.8% were men, with a mean age of 22.86 ± 4.546 years. In terms of satisfaction, functional satisfaction accounted for about 59% of all satisfaction, cosmetic satisfaction was 63.2%, and psychological satisfaction was 70.9%. The primary reason for surgery was cosmetic (45%). Conclusion: The majority of enrolled participants were satisfied with their functional outcomes, whereas their satisfaction with psychological and cosmetic outcomes was moderate.

Background: Antibiotic resistance represents a significant global health challenge, particularly in urinary tract infections, which pose a significant threat in developing countries. Understanding antimicrobial susceptibility patterns is essential for optimizing treatment strategies. The current study aims to assess the bacterial profiles of urinary tract infections and their resistance patterns to commonly used antibiotics. Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted at Smart Health Tower, Iraq, from March to July 2024, analyzing 1,185 urine culture reports for identification and antibiotic resistance. All age groups were included, with no restrictions on medical conditions. Microbial isolation and susceptibility testing were performed using standard techniques and the BD Phoenix™ 50 system. Multidrug resistance (MDR) was defined as resistance to three or more antibiotic classes. Results: Of the reports analyzed, 651 (55%) showed growth. The most frequently isolated pathogens were Escherichia coli (246, 37.8%) and Staphylococcus species (111, 17.0%). Regarding antibiotic resistance, resistance rates of 93.3% among gram-positive to nalidixic acid, and 89.8% among gram-negative to ampicillin were observed. Overall, 57.3% of isolates were MDR, with higher rates in gram-positive bacteria (193, 67.7%) than in gram-negative bacteria (180, 49.9%). Specifically, 113 (46%) of the Escherichia coli and 36 (59.0%) of the Klebsiella species were MDR. Conclusions: The high prevalence of antibiotic resistance and MDR strains limits treatment options, highlighting the urgent need for updated empirical therapy guidelines, enhanced antimicrobial stewardship, and continuous surveillance programs. These findings emphasize the necessity of targeted interventions to curb resistance and improve patient outcomes.

Although self-citation is a common practice among scholars, its impact and significance remain under scrutiny within the academic community. The current study aimed to provide a detailed analysis and ranking of the top 2 % scientists on self-citation, ranked by Stanford University researchers. Data extraction and organisation were performed between January and February 2024. Self-citation percentages were collected for authors belonging to 20 fields and 174 subfields using Excel spreadsheets. Entities were categorised into quartiles based on their self-citation percentages and rankings were assigned accordingly. Comparative analyses were conducted to assess the impact of self-citations on overall rankings. The study focused on data published by a group of researchers from Stanford University regarding the top 2 % of researchers, analysing the career-long records of 204,643 scholars and 210,198 scholars for the most recent year, 2022. Notably, in the single-year analysis, among the top 20 countries, approximately eight (40 %) exhibited self-citation percentages exceeding the average of 25.96 %. The self-citation percentages ranged from 4.47 % in Economics and Business to 20.88 % in Physics and Astronomy. Regarding career-long analysis, the percentage of self-citations ranged from 22.84 % in Poland to 41.31 % in Armenia, with significant drop in rankings among most entities when self-citations were excluded. These findings highlight the dramatic impact of self-citation exclusion on the rankings of the top 2 % of the researchers, underscoring the critical importance of accounting for self-citation in ranking assessments.