Article

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and elaboration

Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Epidemiology (Impact Factor: 6.18). 12/2007; 18(6):805-35. DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181577511
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT 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 generalizability 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.

4 Followers
 · 
340 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose. To study the effects of glutathione S-transferase M1 (GSTM1) and T1 (GSTT1) polymorphisms on age-related cataract (ARC). Methods. After a systematic literature search, all relevant studies evaluating the association between GSTs polymorphisms and ARC were included. Results. Fifteen studies on GSTM1 and nine studies on GSTT1 were included in this meta-analysis. In the pooled analysis, a significant association between null genotype of GSTT1 and ARC was found (OR = 1.229, 95% CI = 1.057-1.429, and P = 0.007). In subgroup analysis, the association between cortical cataract (CC) and GSTM1 null genotype was statistically significant (OR = 0.713, 95% CI = 0.598-0.850, and P < 0.001). In addition, GSTM1 null genotype was significantly associated with ARC causing risk to individuals working indoors and not individuals working outdoors. The association between GSTT1 null genotype and risk of ARC was statistically significant in Asians (OR = 1.442, 95% CI = 1.137-1.830, and P = 0.003) but not in Caucasians. Conclusions. GSTM1 positive genotype is associated with increased risk of CC and loses the protective role in persons who work outdoors. Considering the ethnic variation, GSTT1 null genotype is found to be associated with increased risk of ARC in Asians but not in Caucasians.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The use of reporting guideline is directed at enhancing the completeness and transparency of biomedical publications. The aims of this paper are to present some of the key initiatives and guidelines providing indications and directions on the use of specific tools in oral health research. The EQUATOR Network and five established guidelines (CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, CARE and SPIRIT) are introduced. Five guidelines are presented covering reporting of case reports, non-randomized studies, randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews. The importance of adherence to these guidelines by oral health researchers is emphasised. Endorsement and robust implementation of reporting guidelines will translate into improved and more complete reporting in health research. Moreover, by ingraining the use of guidelines, it may be possible to indirectly improve the methodological quality of clinical studies. Active implementation strategies to encourage adherence to these guidelines among researchers, reviewers, editors and publishers may be an important facet in the advancement of knowledge in dentistry. Clinical significance: Inadequate reporting of research can lead to wasted research resources and risks publication of inaccurate or misleading findings with implications on healthcare decisions. Familiarity and diligent compliance with methodological and reporting guidelines is therefore essential to maximize the yield from dental research. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
    Journal of Dentistry 02/2015; 43(4). DOI:10.1016/j.jdent.2015.01.006 · 2.84 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The popularity of running continues to increase, which means that the incidence of running-related injuries will probably also continue to increase. Little is known about risk factors for running injuries and whether they are sex-specific. The aim of this study was to review information about risk factors and sex-specific differences for running-induced injuries in adults. The databases PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and Psych-INFO were searched for relevant articles. Longitudinal cohort studies with a minimal follow-up of 1 month that investigated the association between risk factors (personal factors, running/training factors and/or health and lifestyle factors) and the occurrence of lower limb injuries in runners were included. Two reviewers' independently selected relevant articles from those identified by the systematic search and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. The strength of the evidence was determined using a best-evidence rating system. Sex differences in risk were determined by calculating the sex ratio for risk factors (the risk factor for women divided by the risk factor for men). Of 400 articles retrieved, 15 longitudinal studies were included, of which 11 were considered high-quality studies and 4 moderate-quality studies. Overall, women were at lower risk than men for sustaining running-related injuries. Strong and moderate evidence was found that a history of previous injury and of having used orthotics/inserts was associated with an increased risk of running injuries. Age, previous sports activity, running on a concrete surface, participating in a marathon, weekly running distance (30-39 miles) and wearing running shoes for 4 to 6 months were associated with a greater risk of injury in women than in men. A history of previous injuries, having a running experience of 0-2 years, restarting running, weekly running distance (20-29 miles) and having a running distance of more than 40 miles per week were associated with a greater risk of running-related injury in men than in women. Previous injury and use of orthotic/inserts are risk factors for running injuries. There appeared to be differences in the risk profile of men and women, but as few studies presented results for men and women separately, the results should be interpreted with caution. Further research should attempt to minimize methodological bias by paying attention to recall bias for running injuries, follow-up time, and the participation rate of the identified target group.
    PLoS ONE 02/2015; 10(2). DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0114937 · 3.53 Impact Factor

Preview (2 Sources)

Download
7 Downloads
Available from