We have noticed a disregard for the appropriate use of the word "first" in scientific articles in the past year. While there is certainly some prestige with being the first author(s) to describe a new scientific finding or unusual clinical entity, invoking this distinction should be done only after a thorough and meticulous literature search warrants it and only when such a claim of priority has some relevance of importance.
For example, one paper described the first reportedly successful implantation of a biventricular pacemaker in Thailand.1 Another article elaborated one of the first laparoscopy-assisted aneurysm repair[s] in Japan.2 A third concerned the first case of food-dependent, exercise-inducted anaphylaxis in Thailand. Another described the first case of metastatic tumor in the right orbit at a university in Krakow.4
While it may seem reasonable to utilize "first" in the title, such as in unusual infections that might be of some epidemiological significance, ...
