https://upload.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr/ctr.cgi?function=...
http://ark.no-blog.jp/blog/2010/11/case_2952.html

I suggest another possiblity. In Japanese case reports/clinical trial protocols, just like Korean ones, we frequently come across redundant phrases. I believe that reflects cultural differences and it makes better results when omitted. But I cannot be confident since I did not see the whole document.

If it is necessary to translate it, as you already know, you should use 'enrolled' cases rather than 'registered' cases because in clinical studies, 登録 is almost always translated into enrollment, not registration.

I believe that in this case 登録 can be registered or enrolled.
And, the meaning of 症例 is "a case" (patient case)


--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 9 mins (2011-01-09 12:10:09 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Also, to your question above, I do believe that "より" is "referencing the source of the patient info" (the patient's case) as you mention.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 13 mins (2011-01-09 12:14:08 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

The patient's case/case history, that is.

Hope you get to have a good night's rest, Joss!

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 11 hrs (2011-01-09 23:22:54 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

--- With reference to your discussion, how about referring to 治験の対象患者 1 as "Case Patient No. 1" or "Case-Patient 1?"
From your description, it seems this refers to a roster of registered cases and each case patient is numbered individually with descriptions.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15030686
Lack of SARS transmission and U.S. SARS case-patient.
Abstract
In early April 2003, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) was diagnosed in a Pennsylvania resident after his exposure to persons with SARS in Toronto, Canada. To identify contacts of the case-patient and evaluate the risk for SARS transmission, a detailed epidemiologic investigation was performed. On the basis of this investigation, 26 persons (17 healthcare workers, 4 household contacts, and 5 others) were identified as having had close contact with this case-patient before infection-control practices were implemented. Laboratory evaluation of clinical specimens showed no evidence of transmission of SARS-associated coronavirus (SARS-CoV) infection to any close contact of this patient.