Disaster reports are common in the literature. Accurate and complete reporting assists readers and researchers in developing best practices. There have been notable efforts, such as the Utstein Template, to standardize the language of disasters and promote consistent use of definitions. However, case reports are complicated by the presence of four dominant types recognized in the literature. Moreover, the disciplines of medicine, public health, and disaster management differ in origins, definitions, research paradigms, and tools of evidence-based decision-making. Finally, biomedical journal guidelines for authors writing disaster case reports have lacked the rigor of standards associated with observational studies (2007 STROBE statement, 2010 MOOSE statement), or with randomized controlled trials (1996 CONSORT statement, 1999 QUORUM statement). This paper examines current efforts to intensify the rigor of future disaster case reports through uniform reporting requirements for authors. The initial workgroup comprised editorial board members of two biomedical journals indexed in the US National Library of Medicine—Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, and Emergency Medicine Australasia. The workgroup members self-selected based on extensive disaster field experience as technical advisor with governmental, non-governmental, Red Cross and UN agencies. The workgroup identified key information needed to understand the context, structure, process, and outcome/impact of disaster field interventions. Then, the workgroup organized this information in thematic domains. Consensus guidelines emerged for Reports of Field Interventions in Disasters and Emergencies (CONFIDE). The CONFIDE Statement addresses 16 keys areas within seven domains, including: field authorization for access, field logistics, initial assessment, clinical epidemiology, and funding. The Statement was first published in December 2010, at which time, the authors began integrating the guidelines with biomedical journal instructions for authors. The paper details current efforts to broaden editorial acceptance of the guidelines, implications for future authors, and potential benefits to the disaster medicine community.