Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology

Last updated

The STROBE(STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology) Statement is a reporting guideline including a checklist of 22 items that are considered essential for good reporting of observational studies. It was published simultaneously in several leading biomedical journals in October and November 2007 and comprises both the checklist [1] and an explanation and elaboration article [2] which gives examples of good reporting and provides authors with more guidance on good reporting. It is also referred to in the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals established by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and is endorsed by hundreds of biomedical journals. [3]

Contents

Purpose

The STROBE Statement was developed by the STROBE Initiative, an international collaboration of epidemiologists, methodologists, statisticians, researchers and journal editors with the aim to assist authors when writing up analytical observational studies, to support editors and reviewers when considering such articles for publication, and to help readers when critically appraising published articles. [4]

Extensions

There are many extensions to the STROBE Statement which cover a variety of different topic domains such as nutritional epidemiology, [5] [6] [7] genetic association studies, [8] rheumatology, [9] [10] molecular epidemiology, [11] infectious disease molecular epidemiology, [12] respondent-driven sampling, [13] routinely collected health data [14] [15] (e.g., health administrative data, electronic health records, and registry data), antimicrobial stewardship programs, [16] seroepidemiologic studies for influenza, [17] medical abortion, simulation-based research, newborn infection, [18] veterinary, [19] and sports injury and illness.

A draft checklist for reporting observational studies in conference abstracts is also available. [20]


Adaptations and future

In 2010, three years after STROBE's publication, the original creators reconvened and deemed an update unnecessary at the time. [21] However, since, calls have supported for the reporting guideline to be updated, similarly to other reporting guidelines (like CONSORT and PRISMA) which have been updated as needed. An assessment of extension content [22] as well as a survey of authors of observational studies [23] [24] provided several areas to improve upon.

The STROBE Statement checklist is also available to use within a Writing Aid Tool [25] [26] add-in for Microsoft Word that includes the STROBE checklist within the software.

The STROBE Statement has also been adapted as a public, open-source repository for epidemiological research methods and reporting skills for observational studies. Epidemiologists, statisticians, and public health researchers are able to comment and edit the tool to inform future updates of the reporting guideline. [27]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Randomized controlled trial</span> Form of scientific experiment

A randomized controlled trial is a form of scientific experiment used to control factors not under direct experimental control. Examples of RCTs are clinical trials that compare the effects of drugs, surgical techniques, medical devices, diagnostic procedures or other medical treatments.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cochrane (organisation)</span> British nonprofit for reviews of medical research (formed 1993)

Cochrane is a British international charitable organisation formed to synthesize medical research findings to facilitate evidence-based choices about health interventions involving health professionals, patients and policy makers. It includes 53 review groups that are based at research institutions worldwide. Cochrane has approximately 30,000 volunteer experts from around the world.

In a blind or blinded experiment, information which may influence the participants of the experiment is withheld until after the experiment is complete. Good blinding can reduce or eliminate experimental biases that arise from a participants' expectations, observer's effect on the participants, observer bias, confirmation bias, and other sources. A blind can be imposed on any participant of an experiment, including subjects, researchers, technicians, data analysts, and evaluators. In some cases, while blinding would be useful, it is impossible or unethical. For example, it is not possible to blind a patient to their treatment in a physical therapy intervention. A good clinical protocol ensures that blinding is as effective as possible within ethical and practical constraints.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mediterranean diet</span> Diet inspired by the Mediterranean region

The Mediterranean diet is a diet inspired by the eating habits and traditional food typical of southern Spain, southern Italy, and Crete, and formulated in the early 1960s. It is distinct from Mediterranean cuisine, which covers the actual cuisines of the Mediterranean countries. While inspired by a specific time and place, the "Mediterranean diet" was later refined based on the results of multiple scientific studies.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Systematic review</span> Comprehensive review of research literature using systematic methods

A systematic review is a scholarly synthesis of the evidence on a clearly presented topic using critical methods to identify, define and assess research on the topic. A systematic review extracts and interprets data from published studies on the topic, then analyzes, describes, critically appraises and summarizes interpretations into a refined evidence-based conclusion. For example, a systematic review of randomized controlled trials is a way of summarizing and implementing evidence-based medicine.

A hierarchy of evidence, comprising levels of evidence (LOEs), that is, evidence levels (ELs), is a heuristic used to rank the relative strength of results obtained from experimental research, especially medical research. There is broad agreement on the relative strength of large-scale, epidemiological studies. More than 80 different hierarchies have been proposed for assessing medical evidence. The design of the study and the endpoints measured affect the strength of the evidence. In clinical research, the best evidence for treatment efficacy is mainly from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Systematic reviews of completed, high-quality randomized controlled trials – such as those published by the Cochrane Collaboration – rank the same as systematic review of completed high-quality observational studies in regard to the study of side effects. Evidence hierarchies are often applied in evidence-based practices and are integral to evidence-based medicine (EBM).

In medicine, a case report is a detailed report of the symptoms, signs, diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of an individual patient. Case reports may contain a demographic profile of the patient, but usually describe an unusual or novel occurrence. Some case reports also contain a literature review of other reported cases. Case reports are professional narratives that provide feedback on clinical practice guidelines and offer a framework for early signals of effectiveness, adverse events, and cost. They can be shared for medical, scientific, or educational purposes.

In epidemiology, reporting bias is defined as "selective revealing or suppression of information" by subjects. In artificial intelligence research, the term reporting bias is used to refer to people's tendency to under-report all the information available.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mendelian randomization</span> Statistical method in genetic epidemiology

In epidemiology, Mendelian randomization is a method using measured variation in genes to examine the causal effect of an exposure on an outcome. Under key assumptions, the design reduces both reverse causation and confounding, which often substantially impede or mislead the interpretation of results from epidemiological studies.

Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) encompasses various initiatives developed by the CONSORT Group to alleviate the problems arising from inadequate reporting of randomized controlled trials. It is part of the larger EQUATOR Network initiative to enhance the transparency and accuracy of reporting in research.

Molecular epidemiology is a branch of epidemiology and medical science that focuses on the contribution of potential genetic and environmental risk factors, identified at the molecular level, to the etiology, distribution and prevention of disease within families and across populations. This field has emerged from the integration of molecular biology into traditional epidemiological research. Molecular epidemiology improves our understanding of the pathogenesis of disease by identifying specific pathways, molecules and genes that influence the risk of developing disease. More broadly, it seeks to establish understanding of how the interactions between genetic traits and environmental exposures result in disease.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Prospective cohort study</span> Longitudinal cohort study

A prospective cohort study is a longitudinal cohort study that follows over time a group of similar individuals (cohorts) who differ with respect to certain factors under study, to determine how these factors affect rates of a certain outcome. For example, one might follow a cohort of middle-aged truck drivers who vary in terms of smoking habits, to test the hypothesis that the 20-year incidence rate of lung cancer will be highest among heavy smokers, followed by moderate smokers, and then nonsmokers.

Peter Christian Gøtzsche is a Danish physician, medical researcher, and former leader of the Nordic Cochrane Center at Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen, Denmark. He is a co-founder of the Cochrane Collaboration and has written numerous reviews for the organization. His membership in Cochrane was terminated by its Governing Board of Trustees on 25 September 2018.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John Ioannidis</span> American scientist (born 1965)

John P. A. Ioannidis is a Greek-American physician-scientist, writer and Stanford University professor who has made contributions to evidence-based medicine, epidemiology, and clinical research. Ioannidis studies scientific research itself, meta-research primarily in clinical medicine and the social sciences.

Critical appraisal in evidence based medicine, is the use of explicit, transparent methods to assess the data in published research, applying the rules of evidence to factors such as internal validity, adherence to reporting standards, conclusions, generalizability and risk-of-bias. Critical appraisal methods form a central part of the systematic review process. They are used in evidence synthesis to assist clinical decision-making, and are increasingly used in evidence-based social care and education provision.

The Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of health research Network is an international initiative aimed at promoting transparent and accurate reporting of health research studies to enhance the value and reliability of medical research literature. The EQUATOR Network was established with the goals of raising awareness of the importance of good reporting of research, assisting in the development, dissemination and implementation of reporting guidelines for different types of study designs, monitoring the status of the quality of reporting of research studies in the health sciences literature, and conducting research relating to issues that impact the quality of reporting of health research studies. The Network acts as an "umbrella" organisation, bringing together developers of reporting guidelines, medical journal editors and peer reviewers, research funding bodies, and other key stakeholders with a mutual interest in improving the quality of research publications and research itself. The EQUATOR Network comprises four centres at the University of Oxford, Bond University, Paris Descartes University, and Ottawa Hospital Research Institute.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses</span>

PRISMA is an evidence-based minimum set of items aimed at helping scientific authors to report a wide array of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, primarily used to assess the benefits and harms of a health care intervention. PRISMA focuses on ways in which authors can ensure a transparent and complete reporting of this type of research. The PRISMA standard superseded the earlier QUOROM standard. It offers the replicability of a systematic literature review. Researchers have to figure out research objectives that answer the research question, states the keywords, a set of exclusion and inclusion criteria. In the review stage, relevant articles were searched, irrelevant ones are removed. Articles are analyzed according to some pre-defined categories.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cynthia Mulrow</span> American physician (born 1953)

Cynthia Mulrow is an American physician and scholar from Edinburg, Texas. She has regularly contributed academic research on many topics to the medical community. Her academic work mainly focuses on systematic reviews and evidence reports, research methodology, and chronic medical conditions.

The GRADE approach is a method of assessing the certainty in evidence and the strength of recommendations in health care. It provides a structured and transparent evaluation of the importance of outcomes of alternative management strategies, acknowledgment of patients and the public values and preferences, and comprehensive criteria for downgrading and upgrading certainty in evidence. It has important implications for those summarizing evidence for systematic reviews, health technology assessments, and clinical practice guidelines as well as other decision makers.

Allegiance bias in behavioral sciences is a bias resulted from the investigator's or researcher's allegiance to a specific school of thought. Researchers/investigators have been exposed to many types of branches of psychology or schools of thought. Naturally they adopt a school or branch that fits with their paradigm of thinking. More specifically, allegiance bias is when this leads therapists, researchers, etc. believing that their school of thought or treatment is superior to others. Their superior belief to these certain schools of thought can bias their research in effective treatments trials or investigative situations leading to allegiance bias. Reason being is that they may have devoted their thinking to certain treatments they have seen work in their past experiences. This can lead to errors in interpreting the results of their research. Their “pledge” to stay within their own paradigm of thinking may affect their ability to find more effective treatments to help the patient or situation they are investigating.

References

  1. ↑ von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP (November 2007). "The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies". Epidemiology. 18 (6): 800–4. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181577654 . PMID   18049194.
  2. ↑ Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Mulrow CD, Pocock SJ, et al. (November 2007). "Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration". Epidemiology. 18 (6): 805–35. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181577511 . PMID   18049195. S2CID   44770054.
  3. ↑ "STROBE Statement: Endorsement". www.strobe-statement.org. Retrieved 2020-04-29.
  4. ↑ von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP (October 2007). "The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies". PLOS Medicine. 4 (10): e296. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296 . PMC   2020495 . PMID   17941714.
  5. ↑ "STROBE-nut".
  6. ↑ Hörnell A, Berg C, Forsum E, Larsson C, Sonestedt E, Åkesson A, et al. (September 2017). "Perspective: An Extension of the STROBE Statement for Observational Studies in Nutritional Epidemiology (STROBE-nut): Explanation and Elaboration". Advances in Nutrition. 8 (5): 652–678. doi:10.3945/an.117.015941. PMC   5593101 . PMID   28916567.
  7. ↑ Lachat C, Hawwash D, Ocké MC, Berg C, Forsum E, Hörnell A, et al. (June 2016). "Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology-Nutritional Epidemiology (STROBE-nut): An Extension of the STROBE Statement". PLOS Medicine. 13 (6): e1002036. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002036 . PMC   4896435 . PMID   27270749.
  8. ↑ Little J, Higgins JP, Ioannidis JP, Moher D, Gagnon F, von Elm E, et al. (February 2009). "STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association Studies (STREGA): an extension of the STROBE statement". PLOS Medicine. 6 (2): e22. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000022 . PMC   2634792 . PMID   19192942.
  9. ↑ Dixon WG, Carmona L, Finckh A, Hetland ML, Kvien TK, Landewe R, et al. (September 2010). "EULAR points to consider when establishing, analysing and reporting safety data of biologics registers in rheumatology". Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. 69 (9): 1596–602. doi:10.1136/ard.2009.125526. PMID   20525843. S2CID   23905174.
  10. ↑ Zavada J, Dixon WG, Askling J (March 2014). "Launch of a checklist for reporting longitudinal observational drug studies in rheumatology: a EULAR extension of STROBE guidelines based on experience from biologics registries". Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. 73 (3): 628. doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-204102. PMID   24058015. S2CID   10261301.
  11. ↑ Gallo V, Egger M, McCormack V, Farmer PB, Ioannidis JP, Kirsch-Volders M, et al. (January 2012). "STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology - Molecular Epidemiology (STROBE-ME): an extension of the STROBE statement" (PDF). European Journal of Clinical Investigation. 42 (1): 1–16. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2362.2011.02561.x. hdl: 1874/274530 . PMID   22023344. S2CID   52871891.
  12. ↑ Field N, Cohen T, Struelens MJ, Palm D, Cookson B, Glynn JR, et al. (April 2014). "Strengthening the Reporting of Molecular Epidemiology for Infectious Diseases (STROME-ID): an extension of the STROBE statement" (PDF). The Lancet. Infectious Diseases. 14 (4): 341–52. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(13)70324-4. PMID   24631223.
  13. ↑ White RG, Hakim AJ, Salganik MJ, Spiller MW, Johnston LG, Kerr L, et al. (December 2015). "Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology for respondent-driven sampling studies: "STROBE-RDS" statement". Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 68 (12): 1463–71. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.04.002. PMC   4669303 . PMID   26112433.
  14. ↑ "What is RECORD?". RECORD-Statement.org.
  15. ↑ Benchimol EI, Smeeth L, Guttmann A, Harron K, Moher D, Petersen I, et al. (October 2015). "The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statement". PLOS Medicine. 12 (10): e1001885. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001885 . PMC   4595218 . PMID   26440803.
  16. ↑ Tacconelli E, Cataldo MA, Paul M, Leibovici L, Kluytmans J, Schröder W, et al. (February 2016). "STROBE-AMS: recommendations to optimise reporting of epidemiological studies on antimicrobial resistance and informing improvement in antimicrobial stewardship". BMJ Open. 6 (2): e010134. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010134. PMC   4762075 . PMID   26895985.
  17. ↑ Horby PW, Laurie KL, Cowling BJ, Engelhardt OG, Sturm-Ramirez K, Sanchez JL, et al. (January 2017). "CONSISE statement on the reporting of Seroepidemiologic Studies for influenza (ROSES-I statement): an extension of the STROBE statement". Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses. 11 (1): 2–14. doi:10.1111/irv.12411. PMC   5155648 . PMID   27417916.
  18. ↑ Fitchett EJ, Seale AC, Vergnano S, Sharland M, Heath PT, Saha SK, et al. (SPRING (Strengthening Publications Reporting Infection in Newborns Globally) Group) (October 2016). "Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology for Newborn Infection (STROBE-NI): an extension of the STROBE statement for neonatal infection research" (PDF). The Lancet. Infectious Diseases. 16 (10): e202–e213. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(16)30082-2. PMID   27633910.
  19. ↑ O'Connor AM, Sargeant JM, Dohoo IR, Erb HN, Cevallos M, Egger M, et al. (December 2016). "Explanation and Elaboration Document for the STROBE-Vet Statement: Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology - Veterinary Extension". Zoonoses and Public Health. 63 (8): 662–698. doi: 10.1111/zph.12315 . PMID   27873473.
  20. ↑ "STROBE checklists". strobe-statement.org. Retrieved 15 May 2015.
  21. ↑ "STROBE Statement: Home". www.strobe-statement.org. Retrieved 2020-04-29.
  22. ↑ Sharp MK, Hren D, Altman DG (November 2018). "The STROBE Extensions: Considerations for Development". Epidemiology. 29 (6): e53–e56. doi:10.1097/EDE.0000000000000899. PMC   7659437 . PMID   30052544.
  23. ↑ Sharp MK, Bertizzolo L, Rius R, Wager E, Gómez G, Hren D (December 2019). "Using the STROBE statement: survey findings emphasized the role of journals in enforcing reporting guidelines". Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 116: 26–35. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.07.019 . hdl: 2117/339689 . PMID   31398440.
  24. ↑ Sharp MK, Glonti K, Hren D (April 2020). "Online survey about the STROBE Statement highlighted divergent views about its content, purpose, and value". Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 123: 100–106. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.03.025 . PMID   32259582.
  25. ↑ Hawwash D, Sharp MK, Argaw A, Kolsteren P, Lachat C (November 2019). "Usefulness of applying research reporting guidelines as Writing Aid software: a crossover randomised controlled trial". BMJ Open. 9 (11): e030943. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030943. PMC   6858139 . PMID   31699728.
  26. ↑ carllachat (2020-01-23). "carllachat/WritingAidTool". GitHub . Retrieved 2020-04-29.
  27. ↑ Sharp MK. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology STROBE (STROBE) Educational Expansion.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.