scholarly journals Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration. Translation to Russian

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Jan P. Vandenbroucke ◽  
Erik Von Elm ◽  
Douglas G. Altman ◽  
Peter C. Gotzsche ◽  
Cynthia D. Mulrow ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Observational Studies ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
Observational Research ◽  
Case Control Studies ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Useful Flow ◽  
Study Designs ◽  
Strobe Statement

Much medical research is observational. The reporting of observational studies is often of insufficient quality. Poor reporting hampers the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a study and the generalisability of its results. Taking into account empirical evidence and theoretical considerations, a group of methodologists, researchers, and editors developed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations to improve the quality of reporting of observational studies. The STROBE Statement consists of a checklist of 22 items, which relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies and four are specific to each of the three study designs. The STROBE Statement provides guidance to authors about how to improve the reporting of observational studies and facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of studies by reviewers, journal editors and readers. This explanatory and elaboration document is intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the STROBE Statement. The meaning and rationale for each checklist item are presented. For each item, one or several published examples and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature are provided. Examples of useful flow diagrams are also included. The STROBE Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www. strobe-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of observational research. This article is the reprint with Russian translation of the original that can be observed here: Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Mulrow CD, et al. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration. PLoS Med 2007;4(10):e297. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040297

scholarly journals The evaluation of the reporting quality of observational studies in Master of Public Health’s dissertations in China

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
ShuangYang Dai ◽  
Xiaobin Zhou ◽  
Hong Xu ◽  
Beibei Li ◽  
JinGao Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Cohort Studies ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Absolute Risk ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Flow Diagram ◽  
Case Control Studies ◽  
Strobe Statement

Abstract Backgrounds Master of public health (MPH) plays an important role in Chinese medical education, and the dissertations is an important part of MPH education. In MPH dissertations, most are observational studies. Compared with randomized controlled trial (RCT), observational studies are more prone to information bias. So, the reporting of the observational studies should be transparent and standard. But, no research on evaluating the reporting quality of the MPH dissertation has been found.Methods A systematic literature search was performed in the Wanfang database from January 1, 2014 to May 31, 2019. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observation Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement was adopted to evaluate the reporting quality of the selected studies. Articles that met the following criteria were selected: (1) observational studies, including cross-sectional studies, case-control studies, and cohort studies; (2) original articles; (3) studies on humans, including both adults and children.Results The Median of compliance to individual STROBE items was 74.79%. The mean (standard deviation) of STROBE score was 14.29 (1.84). Five items/sub-items were 100% reported (“reported” and “partly reported” were combined): background, objectives, study design, report numbers of individuals at each stage, and key result. Fifteen items/sub-items were reported by 75% or more. Reporting of methods and results was often omitted: missing data (6.67%), sensitivity analyses (3.63%), flow diagram (15.15%), and absolute risk (0%). Logistic regression analysis indicated that cohort studies (OR=3.41, 95% CI=1.27-9.16), funding support (OR=4.37, 95% CI=1.27-9.16) and more published papers during postgraduate period (OR=3.46, 95% CI=1.40-8.60) were related to high reporting quality.Conclusion In short, the reporting quality of observational studies in MPH’s dissertations in China is suboptimal. However, it’s necessary to improve the reporting of method and results sections. We recommend that authors should be stricter to adhere STROBE statement when conducting observational studies.

scholarly journals Recommendations for Designing, Conducting and Reporting Observational Studies in Homeopathy

Homeopathy ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 109 (03) ◽  
pp. 114-125
Author(s):  
Michael Teut ◽  
Harald Walach ◽  
Roja Varanasi ◽  
Raj K. Manchanda ◽  
Praveen Oberai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
External Validity ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Internal Validity ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Research Field ◽  
Observational Research ◽  
Special Focus ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Strobe Statement

Abstract Background Randomized placebo-controlled trials are considered to be the gold standard in clinical research and have the highest importance in the hierarchical system of evidence-based medicine. However, from the viewpoint of decision makers, due to lower external validity, practical results of efficacy research are often not in line with the huge investments made over decades. Method We conducted a narrative review. With a special focus on homeopathy, we give an overview on cohort, comparative cohort, case-control and cross-sectional study designs and explain guidelines and tools that help to improve the quality of observational studies, such as the STROBE Statement, RECORD, GRACE and ENCePP Guide. Results Within the conventional medical research field, two types of arguments have been employed in favor of observational studies. First, observational studies allow for a more generalizable and robust estimation of effects in clinical practice, and if cohorts are large enough, there is no over-estimation of effect sizes, as is often feared. We argue that observational research is needed to balance the current over-emphasis on internal validity at the expense of external validity. Thus, observational research can be considered an important research tool to describe “real-world” care settings and can assist with the design and inform the results of randomised controlled trails. Conclusions We present recommendations for designing, conducting and reporting observational studies in homeopathy and provide recommendations to complement the STROBE Statement for homeopathic observational studies.

scholarly journals Adherence to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Statement in Observational Studies Published in Iranian Medical Journals

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Soheila SHAGHAGHIAN ◽  
Behrooz ASTANEH
Keyword(s):  
Observational Studies ◽  
Medical Knowledge ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Observational Research ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Medical Journals ◽  
Multistage Sampling ◽  
Different Characteristics ◽  
Strobe Statement

Background: Although much medical knowledge comes from observational research, such studies are more prone to confounding and bias than others. This study was conducted to evaluate the adherence of the observational studies published in Iranian medical journals to the STROBE (strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology) statement. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, we selected 150 articles of Iranian medical journals, using multistage sampling from Aug 2016 to Jun 2017. The reported items of the STROBE statement in the articles was determined and considered as the adherence of the articles to the statement. The adherence of the articles with different characteristics was compared. Results: The adherence of the articles to the statement varied from 24% to 68% with a mean score of 48%±9%. The lowest mean scores were found in the Result (36%) and Method (49%) sections. The adherence was significantly better in the articles published in the journals indexed in PubMed or Web of Knowledge (ISI) databases (P<0.001) and those written by cooperation of the authors from other countries (P=0.044). Conclusion: The evaluated articles in our study had not adequately reported the items recommended by the STROBE statement. This indicates deficiency in key elements for readers to assess the validity and applicability of a study.  

scholarly journals The evaluation of the reporting quality of observational studies in Master of Public Health’s dissertations in China

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
ShuangYang Dai ◽  
Xiaobin Zhou ◽  
Hong Xu ◽  
Beibei Li ◽  
JinGao Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Cohort Studies ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Absolute Risk ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Flow Diagram ◽  
Case Control Studies ◽  
Strobe Statement

Abstract Backgrounds Master of public health (MPH) plays an important role in Chinese medical education, and the dissertations is an important part of MPH education. In MPH dissertations, most are observational studies. Compared with randomized controlled trial (RCT), observational studies are more prone to information bias. So, the reporting of the observational studies should be transparent and standard. But, no research on evaluating the reporting quality of the MPH dissertation has been found. Methods A systematic literature search was performed in the Wanfang database from January 1, 2014 to May 31, 2019. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observation Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement was adopted to evaluate the reporting quality of the selected studies. Articles that met the following criteria were selected: (1) observational studies, including cross-sectional studies, case-control studies, and cohort studies; (2) original articles; (3) studies on humans, including both adults and children. Results The Median of compliance to individual STROBE items was 74.79%. The mean (standard deviation) of STROBE score was 14.29 (1.84). Five items/sub-items were 100% reported (“reported” and “partly reported” were combined): background, objectives, study design, report numbers of individuals at each stage, and key result. Fifteen items/sub-items were reported by 75% or more. Reporting of methods and results was often omitted: missing data (6.67%), sensitivity analyses (3.63%), flow diagram (15.15%), and absolute risk (0%). Logistic regression analysis indicated that cohort studies (OR=3.41, 95% CI=1.27-9.16), funding support (OR=4.37, 95% CI=1.27-9.16) and more published papers during postgraduate period (OR=3.46, 95% CI=1.40-8.60) were related to high reporting quality. Conclusion In short, the reporting quality of observational studies in MPH’s dissertations in China is suboptimal. However, it’s necessary to improve the reporting of method and results sections. We recommend that authors should be stricter to adhere STROBE statement when conducting observational studies.

scholarly journals Evaluation of the Quality of Reporting of Observational Studies in Otorhinolaryngology - Based on the STROBE Statement

PLoS ONE ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. e0169316 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martine Hendriksma ◽  
Michiel H. M. A. Joosten ◽  
Jeroen P. M. Peters ◽  
Wilko Grolman ◽  
Inge Stegeman
Keyword(s):  
Observational Studies ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Strobe Statement

scholarly journals The evaluation of the reporting quality of observational studies in Master of Public Health’s dissertations in China

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
ShuangYang Dai ◽  
Xiaobin Zhou ◽  
Hong Xu ◽  
Beibei Li ◽  
JinGao Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Cohort Studies ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Absolute Risk ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Flow Diagram ◽  
Case Control Studies ◽  
Strobe Statement

Abstract Backgrounds Master of public health (MPH) plays an important role in Chinese medical education, and the dissertations is an important part of MPH education. In MPH dissertations, most are observational studies. Compared with randomized controlled trial (RCT), observational studies are more prone to information bias. So, the reporting of the observational studies should be transparent and standard. But, no research on evaluating the reporting quality of the MPH dissertation has been found. Methods A systematic literature search was performed in the Wanfang database from January 1, 2014 to May 31, 2019. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observation Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement was adopted to evaluate the reporting quality of the selected studies. Articles that met the following criteria were selected: (1) observational studies, including cross-sectional studies, case-control studies, and cohort studies; (2) original articles; (3) studies on humans, including both adults and children. Results The Median of compliance to individual STROBE items was 74.79%. The mean (standard deviation) of STROBE score was 14.29 (1.84). Five items/sub-items were 100% reported (“reported” and “partly reported” were combined): background, objectives, study design, report numbers of individuals at each stage, and key result. Fifteen items/sub-items were reported by 75% or more. Reporting of methods and results was often omitted: missing data (6.67%), sensitivity analyses (3.63%), flow diagram (15.15%), and absolute risk (0%). Logistic regression analysis indicated that cohort studies (OR=3.41, 95% CI=1.27-9.16), funding support (OR=4.37, 95% CI=1.27-9.16) and more published papers during postgraduate period (OR=3.46, 95% CI=1.40-8.60) were related to high reporting quality. Conclusion In short, the reporting quality of observational studies in MPH’s dissertations in China is suboptimal. However, it’s necessary to improve the reporting of method and results sections. We recommend that authors should be stricter to adhere STROBE statement when conducting observational studies.

scholarly journals Factors Associated with Suicidal Behavior in Farmers: A Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (12) ◽  
pp. 6522
Author(s):  
Emelynne Gabrielly de Oliveira Santos ◽  
Paulo Roberto Queiroz ◽  
Aryelly Dayane da Silva Nunes ◽  
Kelly Graziani Giacchero Vedana ◽  
Isabelle Ribeiro Barbosa
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Suicidal Behavior ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Sample Population ◽  
Case Control Studies ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Factors Associated

This review aimed to investigate the factors associated with suicidal behavior in farmers in the scientific literature. Two researchers participated independently in searching databases, specifically PubMed/MEDLINE, LILACS, Web of Science, Scopus, PsycINFO, and SciELO. Only observational studies were included. The quality of the selected studies was assessed with a critical assessment checklist for cross-sectional analytical and case-control studies, prepared by the Joanna Briggs Institute. Data related to the publication were collected (author and year; city/country); methodological design; sample/population (gender; average age), outcome, measuring instrument and factors associated with suicidal behavior. A total of 14 studies were included in the systematic review, and factors associated with farmers’ behavior in mental health (depression), seasonal impacts (drought), and work exposures (herbicides and insecticides) were identified. However, heterogeneity was found in terms of the method, measurement of suicidal behavior, and associated factors, which indicates the need for further studies.

scholarly journals STROBE-MR: Guidelines for strengthening the reporting of Mendelian randomization studies

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
George Davey Smith ◽  
Neil M Davies ◽  
Niki Dimou ◽  
Matthias Egger ◽  
Valentina Gallo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Observational Studies ◽  
Mendelian Randomization ◽  
Data Sources ◽  
Mr Studies ◽  
Randomised Trials ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Mr Guidance ◽  
Quality And Reliability

While the number of studies using Mendelian randomization (MR) methods has grown exponentially in the last decade, the quality of reporting of these studies often has been poor. Similar to other reporting guidelines such as CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) for randomised trials and STROBE (STrenghtening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology) for observational studies in epidemiology, the STROBE-MR working group aims to provide guidance to authors on how to improve reporting of MR studies and help readers, reviewers, and journal editors to evaluate the quality of the presented evidence. Empirical evidence indicates that many reports of MR studies do not clearly state or examine the various assumptions of MR methods and report insufficient details on the data sources, which makes it hard to evaluate the quality and reliability of the results. The STROBE-MR guidance covers both one sample and two sample MR studies. At present, the draft checklist consists of 20 items, organized into the title and abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. As these guidelines aim to reach the entire MR community, we would like to give everyone the opportunity to contribute their comments. The following draft of the STROBE-MR checklist is open for public discussion and all feedback will be taken into account during its next revision. For feedback, please use the comment section below this post on PeerJ Preprints. We hope the final guidelines will serve the entire community and contribute to improving the reporting of MR studies in the future.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document