DNP 830 Topic 7 case report: what does the research say
The title is the giveaway. The proposed solutions section has to describe the validity and reliability of the research behind them — this is an appraisal exercise wearing a case report's clothes.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · August 15, 2026
A case report is a structure, not a story
The four required sections look conventional and one of them is not. Introduction with a problem statement, brief synthesised review, description of the case, and proposed solutions describing the validity and reliability of the research you have read. That last clause is the assignment's actual demand, and it is why the title asks what the research says. You are not being asked to propose a solution and cite support for it; you are being asked to characterise how good the supporting evidence is. A proposal backed by two small single-site studies with no control is a different proposal from one backed by a multi-site trial, and saying which you have is the appraisal skill being assessed. Say so explicitly rather than leaving the reader to infer it, because the difference between confident and hedged language here is what the appraisal mark actually rests on. Overclaiming costs more here than under-claiming does.
The word synthesised in the review section is doing work too. A synthesised review organises by finding — three studies agree on this, two disagree on that, and here is the methodological difference that probably explains the disagreement. A review organised study by study is an annotated bibliography, and it reads as one however well each paragraph is written. Use the PICOT template from your earlier courses to fix the clinical question before you search, since a case report that drifts from its own PICOT loses the thread between the problem and the proposal. Keep the case description factual and de-identified — dates, ages over eighty-nine and small-unit details are identifiers even without a name. And check the word count against the rubric: this brief specifies a length, and case reports overrun in the description section because the story is the easiest part to write.
Likely learning objectives
Inferred from the brief — check these against your own rubric.
- 01Appraise the strength of evidence rather than only citing it.
- 02Synthesise a body of literature by finding rather than by study.
- 03Anchor a case report to a PICOT question throughout.
- 04De-identify a clinical case correctly.
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
Turn the brief into deliverables
- 01An introduction with an explicit problem statement.
- 02A synthesised review organised by finding.
- 03A factual, de-identified case description.
- 04Proposed solutions with the validity and reliability of their evidence characterised.
- 05A stated PICOT question that the report stays anchored to.
PICOT in, structure through, validity out
Problem statement and PICOT
State the real-world problem and the question that frames it.
Synthesised review
Organise the literature by what it collectively shows.
The case
Describe the situation factually and without identifiers.
Proposed solutions
Set out interventions supported by the reviewed evidence.
Validity and reliability of that evidence
Characterise how strong the supporting research actually is.
Two sources that carry the validity argument
Recommended databases
- CINAHL
- PubMed Central
- Cochrane Library
- Your earlier PICOT worksheet
Search sequence
- 1.Rebuild the PICOT from your earlier course before searching anything.
- 2.Appraise each retrieved study's design before deciding whether to cite it.
- 3.Group findings by what they claim rather than by author.
- 4.Check what your organisation counts as identifiable before writing the case.
Reference shortlist
These are authoritative starting points, not a ready-made bibliography. A qualified reviewer must confirm that each source fits the assignment and supports the claim beside which it is cited.
Nothing here is cleared for citation until you have read it.
- 01
Epidemiology Of Study Design
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2023
The design catalogue that lets each supporting study be classified before its strength is claimed.
- 02
Study Bias
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2023
Sets out the biases that decide whether a supporting study is strong or merely suggestive.
- 03
The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
BMJ · 2021
A synthesis reporting standard, useful as a model for organising a review by finding rather than by paper.
- 04
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Compliance
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2023
Covers what makes a case description identifiable, which is the constraint the case section has to work inside.
Review before submission
Common mistakes
- Citing supporting studies without appraising their quality.
- Writing the review study by study, producing an annotated bibliography.
- Letting the case description consume the word count.
- Leaving dates or unit-level detail that could identify the patient.
- Drifting away from the PICOT question the report opened with.
Submission checklist
- Does the proposed-solutions section characterise evidence quality?
- Is the review organised by finding rather than by paper?
- Is the PICOT question still recognisable at the end?
- Is the case description free of identifiers?
Use this guide to plan and review your own work. Follow your institution's rules and read our academic-integrity policy.
Written by
Aaron Bishop
MA, Education
assignment interpretation and research-methods coaching across disciplines
Aaron leads the EssayCrackers editorial desk. He works on how assignment briefs are read — what a rubric is actually asking for, and where students most often answer a different question than the one set.
Reviewed by
Dr. Nathan Cole
PhD, Rhetoric & Composition
Argumentation and thesis development
Nathan teaches first-year composition and directs a university writing center. He reviews EssayCrackers guides for argumentative soundness and citation accuracy.