The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies
Top Cited Papers
Open Access
- 1 December 2014
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) in International Journal of Surgery
- Vol. 12 (12), 1495-1499
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.07.013
Abstract
Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalisability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case–control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. 18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case–control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the Web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studiesKeywords
This publication has 28 references indexed in Scilit:
- Bias in psychiatric case–control studiesThe British Journal of Psychiatry, 2007
- Comparison of evidence on harms of medical interventions in randomized and nonrandomized studiesCMAJ : Canadian Medical Association Journal, 2006
- Quality of Reporting of Observational Longitudinal ResearchAmerican Journal of Epidemiology, 2005
- Issues in the reporting of epidemiological studies: a survey of recent practiceBMJ, 2004
- Assessing the quality of researchBMJ, 2004
- Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trialsBMJ, 2001
- Clinical Epidemiological Quality in Molecular Genetic ResearchJAMA, 1999
- Meta-analysis Spurious precision? Meta-analysis of observational studiesBMJ, 1998
- Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health careBMJ, 1996
- GUIDELINES FOR DOCUMENTATION OF EPIDEMIOLOGIC STUDIESAmerican Journal of Epidemiology, 1981