scholarly journals Addressing the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement in Archives of Plastic Surgery Reports

2014 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Jang Hyun Lee
Keyword(s):  
Plastic Surgery ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
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 Evaluation of the reporting quality of observational studies in Master of Public Health’s dissertations in China: a systematic review

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
ShuangYang Dai ◽  
Xiaobin Zhou ◽  
Hong Xu ◽  
Beibei Li ◽  
JinGao Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Observational Studies ◽  
Absolute Risk ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Flow Diagram ◽  
Master Of Public Health ◽  
The Mean ◽  
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. Results The median of compliance with STROBE statement of 165 articles was 67.82%. The mean (standard deviation) of STROBE score was 14.3 (1.91). Five items/sub-items were 100% reported: 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 (12.73%), sensitivity analyses (3.03%), flow diagram (15.15%), and absolute risk (0%). Logistic regression analysis indicated that funding support (OR=13.98, 95% CI=4.37-44.70) and more published papers during postgraduate period (OR=2.77, 95% CI=1.02-7.54) 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 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 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 Quality of Cohort Studies Reporting Post the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement

2011 ◽  
Vol 33 ◽  
pp. e2011005 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jalal Poorolajal ◽  
Zahra Cheraghi ◽  
Amin Doosti Irani ◽  
Shahab Rezaeian
Keyword(s):  
Cohort Studies ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Strobe Statement

scholarly journals The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies

2014 ◽  
Vol 12 (12) ◽  
pp. 1495-1499 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erik von Elm ◽  
Douglas G. Altman ◽  
Matthias Egger ◽  
Stuart J. Pocock ◽  
Peter C. Gøtzsche ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Observational Studies ◽  
Strobe Statement

scholarly journals STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology – Molecular Epidemiology (STROBE-ME): An Extension of the STROBE Statement

PLoS Medicine ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. e1001117 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valentina Gallo ◽  
Matthias Egger ◽  
Valerie McCormack ◽  
Peter B. Farmer ◽  
John P. A. Ioannidis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Molecular Epidemiology ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Strobe Statement

scholarly journals The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies

2007 ◽  
Vol 147 (8) ◽  
pp. 573 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erik von Elm ◽  
Douglas G. Altman ◽  
Matthias Egger ◽  
Stuart J. Pocock ◽  
Peter C. Gøtzsche ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Observational Studies ◽  
Strobe Statement
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document