This article by Mohammad Hassan Murad, Shahnaz Sultan, Samir Haffar, and Fateh Bazerbachi discusses the methodological quality and synthesis of case reports and case series in medical literature. Case reports and case series, though uncontrolled and prone to bias, have significantly influenced medical knowledge and continue to be valuable sources of information. The authors propose a framework for evaluating the methodological quality of these studies, focusing on selection, ascertainment, causality, and reporting. They provide a tool with signaling questions to aid practitioners and systematic reviewers in assessing the evidence. The article also suggests using case reports and case series to inform decision-making when higher-level evidence is not available. The authors emphasize the importance of narrative and quantitative synthesis in systematic reviews of case reports and case series, highlighting the limitations and challenges in such analyses. They conclude by advocating for the integration of case reports and case series into clinical practice and guideline development, particularly when higher levels of evidence are lacking.This article by Mohammad Hassan Murad, Shahnaz Sultan, Samir Haffar, and Fateh Bazerbachi discusses the methodological quality and synthesis of case reports and case series in medical literature. Case reports and case series, though uncontrolled and prone to bias, have significantly influenced medical knowledge and continue to be valuable sources of information. The authors propose a framework for evaluating the methodological quality of these studies, focusing on selection, ascertainment, causality, and reporting. They provide a tool with signaling questions to aid practitioners and systematic reviewers in assessing the evidence. The article also suggests using case reports and case series to inform decision-making when higher-level evidence is not available. The authors emphasize the importance of narrative and quantitative synthesis in systematic reviews of case reports and case series, highlighting the limitations and challenges in such analyses. They conclude by advocating for the integration of case reports and case series into clinical practice and guideline development, particularly when higher levels of evidence are lacking.