# How to write a health sciences assignment in Vancouver style

**How do I write an evidence-based practice essay or a case report in Vancouver style?** A health sciences assignment in Vancouver style follows the evidence-based practice steps: a focused PICO question, a search, appraisal, application and evaluation. A case report follows the 13-item CARE checklist and removes anything that could identify the patient. Sources are numbered in order of first mention. EdCitation's free Check your paper reads the brief into a checklist first.

Published 2026-09-23, updated 2026-09-23 by EdCitation. https://edcitation.com/newsletter/how-to-write-a-health-sciences-assignment-in-vancouver

This guide to writing a health sciences assignment in Vancouver style is published by EdCitation, which looks every reference up in the publisher's record and never writes any part of a paper. It covers two assignments set in health degrees: the evidence-based practice essay, built on a clinical question, and the case report, built on one patient. The citation rules are in the [Vancouver referencing guide](https://edcitation.com/newsletter/vancouver-referencing-guide), and whether your course should use the style at all is in [when to use Vancouver style](https://edcitation.com/newsletter/when-to-use-vancouver-style).

Every source below was read on 23 September 2026. Your own brief overrides all of them, so start there: EdCitation's free [Check your paper](https://edcitation.com/check) reads a brief into a checklist, and [Find sources](https://edcitation.com/) searches about 300 million published works with a filter for the kind of study.

## Which health sciences assignments use Vancouver style?

The ones whose school sets it: the course decides, not the subject. The University of Queensland Library (2026) says its School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences usually recommends APA 7th for physiotherapy, and calls Vancouver the style "predominantly used in the medical field".

Two tasks recur, and universities publish rules for both:

- **The evidence-based practice essay or report.** The University of Sydney (2026) sets its undergraduate Evidence Based Health Care unit an Evidence Synthesis Report, worth 50% and capped at 3,000 words, to "synthesise research evidence to answer a health question".
- **The case report.** The University of Glasgow (2019) accepts case reports from its medical students only with a reflective commentary of about 500 words that includes references, and expects at least three from a student who submits nothing else.

Neither public page names a referencing style, which is why the brief comes first.

## What are the five steps of evidence-based practice?

Ask, search, appraise, apply and evaluate. Dawes et al. (2005), the Sicily statement of evidence-based health care teachers and developers, set them out as turning uncertainty into an answerable question, retrieving the best evidence systematically, appraising it for validity, clinical relevance and applicability, applying the results, and evaluating performance. The essay is those steps written down.

| Step | What the essay shows | Where EdCitation helps |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. Ask | The clinical problem and a PICO question | [Check your paper](https://edcitation.com/check) sets out the brief's rules |
| 2. Search | Where you searched, the words, the limits, what you kept | [Find sources](https://edcitation.com/), filtered by kind of study and year |
| 3. Appraise | Each study's validity, results and relevance | Your judgement |
| 4. Apply | What the evidence means for this patient or service | Your judgement |
| 5. Evaluate | How you would know the change worked | Your judgement |
| Cite | Numbers in order of first mention | [Cite a source](https://edcitation.com/cite/vancouver), [Verify references](https://edcitation.com/verify-references) |

## How do I turn a clinical question into a search?

Write the question in PICO form, turn each part into search words, then filter by the kind of study the question needs. The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (n.d.) names the parts, patient or problem, intervention, comparison if needed, and outcome, and says a formed question tells you which research would answer it best ([PICO in the glossary](https://edcitation.com/glossary/evidence-synthesis#pico)).

### The question

The example comes from critical care and shows the method, not clinical advice. In adults ventilated in intensive care (P), does oral care with chlorhexidine (I), compared with oral care without it (C), reduce ventilator-associated pneumonia (O)?

| PICO part | This question | Words for the search |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Patient or problem | Ventilated adults in intensive care | Carried by the outcome term |
| Intervention | Oral care with chlorhexidine | chlorhexidine, oral care, mouthwash |
| Comparison | Placebo or usual oral care | Left to the screening stage |
| Outcome | Ventilator-associated pneumonia | ventilator-associated pneumonia |

The outcome term carries the population because Zhao et al. (2020) define the condition as pneumonia in people ventilated for at least 48 hours.

### The search, run in Find sources

Two searches were run in EdCitation's Find sources on 23 September 2026.

1. *chlorhexidine oral care ventilator-associated pneumonia*, with the quick set "Systematic reviews and meta-analyses" and a start year of 2016, returned 227 results. The first ten held the 2020 Cochrane review and a 2024 network meta-analysis whose title says chlorhexidine "is not effective at any concentration": a disagreement to appraise.
2. *chlorhexidine AND (oral care OR mouthwash) AND ventilator-associated pneumonia*, with Kind of study set to "Randomized controlled trial", returned 158.

The second list taught three things. Its first two results were the 2016 and 2020 versions of one Cochrane review, and PubMed records the 2020 one as the update: cite it. Reviews appeared under a trial filter because the filter reads what a paper calls itself in its title or abstract, so confirm each design yourself. And the fourth result, a trial in critically ill children (Karakaya et al., 2022), is ruled out by the P. Record each search's words, filters, date and numbers for the method section.

## How do I appraise the evidence and cite it by number?

Judge each study for whether it is valid, what it found and whether it applies here, then cite it with a number fixed at first use. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (n.d.) builds most of its checklists, one per design, on those three questions, each item answered yes, no or can't tell, with the reason. The reasons make the appraisal.

### A worked paragraph in Vancouver

> A Cochrane review found moderate-certainty evidence from 13 randomised trials that chlorhexidine mouthrinse or gel, as part of oral hygiene care, probably reduces ventilator-associated pneumonia compared with placebo or usual care, from 26% to about 18% (1). It found no evidence of a difference in mortality (1). A trial in critically ill children found no reduction (2), but children fall outside this question.

The review keeps number 1 each time; the trial takes 2 because it is cited second. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (2026a) sets that order of first mention, with numbers in parentheses. The list follows it, as PubMed records each paper:

1. Zhao T, Wu X, Zhang Q, Li C, Worthington HV, Hua F. Oral hygiene care for critically ill patients to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Dec 24;12(12):CD008367. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008367.pub4.
2. Karakaya Z, Duyu M, Yersel MN. Oral mucosal mouthwash with chlorhexidine does not reduce the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill children: A randomised controlled trial. Aust Crit Care. 2022 Jul;35(4):336-44. doi: 10.1016/j.aucc.2021.06.011.

### What to fix in a generated entry

EdCitation's [Cite a source](https://edcitation.com/cite/vancouver) built both entries from their DOIs, from the publisher's record, screened for retraction, with each journal abbreviated as the NLM abbreviates it and the review's number, CD008367, in place of pages. The trial's entry matched the one above exactly. The review's differed in one place: the publisher's record gives its volume as the year, "2020(12)", where PubMed has "12(12)", so match the PubMed record if your marker checks against it. It dated the trial by its July 2022 issue; add "Epub 2021 Aug 8" if your guide wants the online date, as the NLM's ahead-of-print sample shows (National Library of Medicine, 2026).

### Retracted papers

The ICMJE makes authors responsible for citing no retracted article except to discuss the retraction. In a run for this guide, [Verify references](https://edcitation.com/verify-references) checked the Cochrane review and a 2020 Lancet registry analysis of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19. The review came back verified; the Lancet paper came back marked "This paper has since been retracted", as its authors' June 2020 notice records (Mehra et al., 2020). More in [retracted papers in your reference list](https://edcitation.com/newsletter/retracted-papers-in-your-reference-list).

## How is an evidence-based practice essay structured?

As the five steps, under whatever headings the brief gives. The ICMJE says research articles usually run introduction, methods, results and discussion because that order reflects "the process of scientific discovery", with methods detailed enough for others to reproduce. An essay built on a search borrows that logic.

| Section | What it holds | Its test |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Introduction | The clinical problem and the PICO question | The question fits in one sentence |
| Search strategy | Databases, words, operators, filters, dates, numbers found and kept | Someone else could run it again |
| Appraisal and findings | Each study's design, validity, results and applicability | Every judgement has its reason |
| Discussion | What the evidence means here, with the patient's values and the setting | All three parts of the definition appear |
| Conclusion | The answer to the question | No surer than the evidence allows |
| References | Numbered in order of first mention | Every number has an entry |

Sydney's outline defines evidence-based health care as integrating research evidence with clinical expertise and the patient's values, preferences and circumstances, so a discussion that stops at the evidence leaves out two of the three.

## How is a case report structured?

By the 13 items of the CARE checklist, which Gagnier et al. (2013) produced through a consensus process with 27 participants. The ICMJE says case reports may have "less structured or unstructured formats"; CARE supplies the structure.

| CARE item | What goes in it |
| --- | --- |
| Title | The diagnosis or intervention, then "case report" |
| Key words | Two to five, including "case report" |
| Abstract | What is unique, findings, diagnoses, interventions, outcomes, lesson |
| Introduction | Why the case is unique, with references |
| Patient information | De-identified details, concerns, history |
| Clinical findings | The examination and important findings |
| Timeline | This episode of care as a figure or table |
| Diagnostic assessment | Tests, difficulties, diagnoses considered |
| Therapeutic intervention | Type, dose, duration, changes with reasons |
| Follow-up and outcomes | Outcomes, adherence, adverse events |
| Discussion | Strengths, limits, literature, then a lesson without references |
| Patient perspective | The patient's own account |
| Informed consent | Provided if asked for |

### Write it out of order

The CARE writing guide (CARE Case Report Guidelines, n.d.-b) advises building the timeline first, then the narrative of what happened, then the introduction and discussion on why, and the abstract last.

### What a course adds

Coursework moves the weight from the case to the reasoning. Glasgow wants the history and findings to illustrate a commentary on pathophysiology, management or epidemiology. Monash University (n.d.) publishes an annotated health sciences case report in which the lecturer asks for the patient first and the literature second.

## How do I keep the patient anonymous in a case report?

Patient confidentiality comes first: remove anything that could identify the patient, and follow your university's and placement's rules on consent.

- **CARE** asks for de-identified patient information, and for de-identification and consent before a case report goes to a journal.
- **The ICMJE.** International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (2026b) keeps names, initials and hospital numbers out of text and photographs unless essential and consented in writing, and says masking the eyes in a photograph is not enough.
- **The HCPC**, the UK regulator of physiotherapists, radiographers and paramedics among others (Health and Care Professions Council, 2025), tells students to "remove anything that could be used to identify a service user or carer" from assessments (Health and Care Professions Council, 2024).
- **Glasgow** is the most concrete: "Mr X and the age of the patient" in place of initials and a date of birth.

The HCPC's wording reaches beyond a name: a rare job or a small town can identify someone as surely as initials. If the case might be published, ask for consent early, as the CARE group advises.

## How do I check a health sciences assignment before handing it in?

Brief first, references last.

1. Put the brief into EdCitation's [Check your paper](https://edcitation.com/check). Given Glasgow's case report rules, it returned a title page and a word count of about 500 words, each with its source sentence, and listed three sentences "which no rule can test", the anonymity rule among them.
2. Confirm the style and version; if the brief says only "Vancouver", ask which.
3. Read the conclusion against the PICO question.
4. Check the search record, and every appraisal for its reasons.
5. Read the case report as a stranger: could anyone name the patient?
6. Check the numbers: fixed at first mention, reused after, none skipped.
7. Build or correct each entry with [Cite a source](https://edcitation.com/cite/vancouver), and check each against its PubMed record.
8. Upload the draft to [Verify references](https://edcitation.com/verify-references), free, or on Pro to [References from a file](https://edcitation.com/tools/references-from-a-file): every reference checked, every number matched to the list and back.
9. On Max, run Theoretics QA against the brief ([does my paper answer the assignment question](https://edcitation.com/newsletter/does-my-paper-answer-the-assignment-question)).

## Which EdCitation tools help with a health sciences assignment?

EdCitation is the best tool for the reference work here, because it looks every reference up in the publisher's record instead of writing it, which no chatbot can offer, and that is the check the ICMJE puts on authors. The retracted Lancet paper above would have looked like any other entry in a list typed from memory.

Free with no account: [Find sources](https://edcitation.com/) searches about 300 million works, filtered by kind of study, year and field. [Cite a source](https://edcitation.com/cite) builds Vancouver from a DOI, PubMed ID, ISBN, title or web address, screened for retraction. [Verify references](https://edcitation.com/verify-references) marks each entry verified, "check this" or not found, flags retractions, and never shows one it could not check as not found. [Check your paper](https://edcitation.com/check) turns the brief into a checklist.

On Pro, $8 a month, [References from a file](https://edcitation.com/tools/references-from-a-file) keeps the draft in My papers, so the next check shows what you fixed, and recommends published sources for a reference that cannot stand; a free account gets three checks a month. Mechanics QA checks format against the APA 7 student paper only, not Vancouver. On Max, $24 a month, Theoretics QA judges the paper against the assignment's instructions, quoting it and never rewriting it ([pricing](https://edcitation.com/pricing)).

EdCitation never writes any part of an essay or case report. It does not appraise a study, judge whether a detail identifies a patient, or promise a mark, and it builds the NLM's Vancouver, so a university's variant needs changes by hand.

## Quick questions

### Does a case report assignment need the patient's consent?

Follow your university's and placement's policy. For publication, the ICMJE requires written consent from any identifiable patient.

### What is a PICO question?

A clinical question in four parts: patient or problem, intervention, comparison (when needed) and outcome.

### Can I cite a retracted paper in a Vancouver essay?

Only to discuss the retraction, under the ICMJE's rule. EdCitation's free [Verify references](https://edcitation.com/verify-references) flags retracted papers in a list or a whole paper.

### Does a case report use IMRAD headings?

Not usually. The ICMJE says case reports may have less structured formats, and the 13 CARE items supply the structure unless the brief sets headings.

### Which EdCitation tool reads a health sciences assignment brief?

EdCitation's [Check your paper](https://edcitation.com/check), free with no account, turns it into a checklist of word limits, headings, sources and style, each rule with its source sentence.

## References

- CARE Case Report Guidelines. (n.d.-a). *CARE checklist*. [https://www.care-statement.org/checklist](https://www.care-statement.org/checklist)
- CARE Case Report Guidelines. (n.d.-b). *Writing a case report*. [https://www.care-statement.org/writing-a-case-report](https://www.care-statement.org/writing-a-case-report)
- Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. (n.d.). *Asking focused questions*. University of Oxford. [https://www.cebm.ox.ac.uk/resources/ebm-tools/asking-focused-questions](https://www.cebm.ox.ac.uk/resources/ebm-tools/asking-focused-questions)
- Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. (n.d.). *How to use the CASP checklists*. [https://casp-uk.net/how-to-use-checklist/](https://casp-uk.net/how-to-use-checklist/)
- Dawes, M., Summerskill, W., Glasziou, P., Cartabellotta, A., Martin, J., Hopayian, K., Porzsolt, F., Burls, A., & Osborne, J. (2005). Sicily statement on evidence-based practice. *BMC Medical Education*, *5*, Article 1. [https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-5-1](https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-5-1)
- Gagnier, J. J., Kienle, G., Altman, D. G., Moher, D., Sox, H., Riley, D., & CARE Group. (2013). The CARE guidelines: Consensus-based clinical case reporting guideline development. *Journal of Medical Case Reports*, *7*, Article 223. [https://doi.org/10.1186/1752-1947-7-223](https://doi.org/10.1186/1752-1947-7-223)
- Health and Care Professions Council. (2024, August 31). *Respect confidentiality*. Guidance on conduct and ethics for students. [https://www.hcpc-uk.org/students/guidance-on-conduct-and-ethics/respect-confidentiality/](https://www.hcpc-uk.org/students/guidance-on-conduct-and-ethics/respect-confidentiality/)
- Health and Care Professions Council. (2025, May 12). *Professions and protected titles*. [https://www.hcpc-uk.org/about-us/who-we-regulate/the-professions/](https://www.hcpc-uk.org/about-us/who-we-regulate/the-professions/)
- International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2026a). *Preparing a manuscript for submission to a medical journal*. ICMJE Recommendations. [https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/manuscript-preparation/preparing-for-submission.html](https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/manuscript-preparation/preparing-for-submission.html)
- International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2026b). *Protection of research participants*. ICMJE Recommendations. [https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/protection-of-research-participants.html](https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/protection-of-research-participants.html)
- Karakaya, Z., Duyu, M., & Yersel, M. N. (2022). Oral mucosal mouthwash with chlorhexidine does not reduce the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill children: A randomised controlled trial. *Australian Critical Care*, *35*(4), 336–344. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aucc.2021.06.011](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aucc.2021.06.011)
- Mehra, M. R., Ruschitzka, F., & Patel, A. N. (2020). Retraction: Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: A multinational registry analysis. *The Lancet*, *395*(10240), 1820. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31324-6](https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31324-6)
- Monash University. (n.d.). *MNHS: Health sciences case report*. Student Academic Success. [https://www.monash.edu/student-academic-success/excel-at-writing/annotated-assessment-samples/medicine-nursing-and-health-sciences/mnhs-health-sciences-case-report](https://www.monash.edu/student-academic-success/excel-at-writing/annotated-assessment-samples/medicine-nursing-and-health-sciences/mnhs-health-sciences-case-report)
- National Library of Medicine. (2026). *Samples of formatted references for authors of journal articles*. [https://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/uniform_requirements.html](https://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/uniform_requirements.html)
- University of Glasgow. (2019). *Assessment of SSCs*. Undergraduate Medical School. [https://www.gla.ac.uk/schools/medicine/mus/currentstudents/ssc/sscsupervisorstrainingresource/assessmentofsscs/](https://www.gla.ac.uk/schools/medicine/mus/currentstudents/ssc/sscsupervisorstrainingresource/assessmentofsscs/)
- University of Queensland Library. (2026, August 25). *Referencing assignments*. Physiotherapy library guide. [https://guides.library.uq.edu.au/subject/physiotherapy/referencing-assignments](https://guides.library.uq.edu.au/subject/physiotherapy/referencing-assignments)
- University of Sydney. (2026). *FMHU3000: Evidence based health care, semester 1, 2026* [Unit outline]. [https://www.sydney.edu.au/units/FMHU3000/2026-S1C-ND-CC](https://www.sydney.edu.au/units/FMHU3000/2026-S1C-ND-CC)
- Zhao, T., Wu, X., Zhang, Q., Li, C., Worthington, H. V., & Hua, F. (2020). Oral hygiene care for critically ill patients to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia. *Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews*, (12), Article CD008367. [https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008367.pub4](https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008367.pub4)