Indian Journal of PsychiatryIndian Journal of Psychiatry
Home | About us | Current Issue | Archives | Ahead of Print | Submission | Instructions | Subscribe | Advertise | Contact | Login 
    Users online: 674 Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size Print this article Email this article Bookmark this page
Search Again
 Table of Contents
 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Article Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert
 Add to My List
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded308    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 5    

Recommend this journal

Year : 2010  |  Volume : 52  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 187-190

Lithium, trifluperazine and idiopathic leucopenia: Author and reviewer perspectives on how to write a good case report

1 Department of Psychopharmacology, National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bangalore, India
2 Neuropsychiatry and Headache Clinic, Prathap Nagar Metro Station, New Delhi, India

Correspondence Address:
Chittaranjan Andrade
Department of Psychopharmacology, National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bangalore - 560 029
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/0019-5545.64594

Rights and Permissions

Background: The Indian Journal of Psychiatry receives many reports which, despite obvious academic worth, are too poorly written to be publishable. Such submissions tax manuscript reviewers and increase the editorial office workload without benefiting the authors with a publication. Methods: We describe an authentic and previously unpublished case of idiopathic leucopenia and psychosis. Leucocyte levels in this patient dropped upon challenge with different atypical antipsychotic drugs. Lithium pretreatment, however, permitted the safe and successful use of trifluperazine. Readers are invited to use a roughly-prepared version of the case report to draft a submission-worthy manuscript. Results: Two versions of the manuscript are presented. The first version is generally satisfactory but will trigger several queries during peer review; these queries are indicated. The second version would be considered acceptable by most reviewers. Conclusions: Readers who work through the exercise provided in this article will better understand how authors should prepare their report and how reviewers may scrutinize their manuscript.



Print this article         Email this article