Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG et al.STROBE Initiative. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. Epidemiology 18:805-835

University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Baden-Württemberg, Germany
Epidemiology (Impact Factor: 6.2). 12/2007; 18(6):805-35. DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181577511
Source: PubMed


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 ( should be helpful resources to improve reporting of observational research.

Download full-text


Available from: PubMed Central, Dec 16, 2014 · License: CC BY
  • Source
    • "). The observational guidance document, Supplementary Table S2, has similarities to previously published evaluative instruments and checklists (LaKind et al., 2014; Stroup et al., 2000; Vandenbroucke et al., 2007). A principal distinction is the point of application; the ORD study design guidance documents are intended for prospective use, while previously published checklists were designed for retrospective use. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Considerable concern has been raised regarding research reproducibility both within and outside the scientific community. Several factors possibly contribute to a lack of reproducibility, including a failure to adequately employ statistical considerations during study design, bias in sample selection or subject recruitment, errors in developing data inclusion/exclusion criteria, and flawed statistical analysis. To address some of these issues, several publishers have developed checklists that authors must complete. Others have either enhanced statistical expertise on existing editorial boards, or formed distinct statistics editorial boards. Although the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, already has a strong Quality Assurance Program, an initiative was undertaken to further strengthen statistics consideration and other factors in study design and also to ensure these same factors are evaluated during the review and approval of study protocols. To raise awareness of the importance of statistical issues and provide a forum for robust discussion, a Community of Practice for Statistics was formed in January 2014. In addition, three working groups were established to develop a series of questions or criteria that should be considered when designing or reviewing experimental, observational, or modeling focused research. This article describes the process used to develop these study design guidance documents, their contents, how they are being employed by the Agency's research enterprise, and expected benefits to Agency science. The process and guidance documents presented here may be of utility for any research enterprise interested in enhancing the reproducibility of its science. © The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society of Toxicology.
    Full-text · Article · Mar 2015 · Toxicological Sciences
  • Source
    • "This study included 836 patients with histologically confirmed diagnosis of GIST from the multi-center Ulmer GIST Registry from 2006 to 2011. These patients were registered in a multi-center network encompassing 18 oncological centers in South Germany, according to the User's Guide to Registries Evaluating Patient Outcomes and to the Strengthening (of) the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]. All cooperating centers are non restricted, open hospitals implicating neither demographic nor social or clinical selection bias. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Currently available data on prognostic implication of additional neoplasms in GIST miss comprehensive information on patient outcome with regard to overall or disease specific and disease free survival. Registry data of GIST patients with and without additional neoplasm were compared in retrospective case series. We investigated a total of 836 patients from the multi-center Ulmer GIST registry. Additionally, a second cohort encompassing 143 consecutively recruited patients of a single oncology center were analyzed. The frequency of additional malignant neoplasms in GIST patients was 31.9% and 42.0% in both cohorts with a mean follow-up time of 54 and 65 months (median 48 and 60 months), respectively. The spectrum of additional neoplasms in both cohorts encompasses gastrointestinal tumors (43.5%), uro-genital and breast cancers (34.1%), hematological malignancies (7.3%), skin cancer (7.3%) and others. Additional neoplasms have had a significant impact on patient outcome. The five year overall survival in GIST with additional malignant neoplasms (n = 267) was 62.8% compared to 83.4% in patients without other tumors (n = 569) (P < .001, HR=0.397, 95% CI: 0.298-0.530). Five-year disease specific survival was not different between both groups (90.8% versus 90.9%). 34.2% of all deaths (n = 66 of n = 193) were GIST-related. The presented data suggest a close association between the duration of follow-up and the rate of additional malignancies in GIST patients. Moreover the data indicate a strong impact of additional malignant neoplasms in GIST on patient outcome. A comprehensive follow-up strategy of GIST patients appears to be warranted. Copyright © 2014. Published by Elsevier Inc.
    Full-text · Article · Jan 2015 · Neoplasia (New York, N.Y.)
  • Source
    • "Assessment of study quality The 23 studies that met the inclusion criteria were assessed for quality. These criteria were adapted from the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations (Vandenbrouck et al., 2007) and the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement (Moher et al., 2001). A formal quality score for each study was completed on a six-point scale by assessing a value of 0 (no present or inadequately described) or 1 (present and explicitly described) to each of the following questions: (a) Did the article provide a detailed description of the program context: teacher expertise and students previous experience? "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Research concerning Sport Education's educational impact has shown unequivocal results according to students' personal and social development. Nevertheless, research is still sparse with respect to the model's impact on student learning out-comes. The goal of the present review is to therefore scrutinize what is currently known regarding students' learning during their participation in Sport Education. This research spans a variety of studies, cross various countries, school grades, the sports studied, as well as the methods applied and dimensions of student learning analyzed. While research on the impact of Sport Education on students' learning, as well as teachers' and students' perceptions about student learning has shown stu-dents' improvements during the participation in Sport Educa-tion seasons, there is still considerable variance in these re-sults. For example, some studies report superior learning opportunities to boys and higher skill-level students while other studies have identified superior learning opportunities for girls and lower skill-level students. These inconsistent results can be explained by factors not considered in the Sport Education research, such as the effect of time on students' learning and the control of the teaching-learning process with-in Sport Education units. In this review directions for future research and practice are also described. Future research should define, implement, and evaluate protocols for student-coaches' preparation in order to understand the influence of this issue on students' learning as well as consider the imple-mentation of hybrid approaches. Moreover, future studies should consider the interaction of gender and skill level and a retention test in the analysis of students' learning improve-ments in order to obtain a more realist and complete portrait of the impact of Sport Education. Finally, in order to reach an entirely understanding of the teaching-learning process, it is necessary to use research designs that attend to the complexity of this process.
    Full-text · Article · Dec 2014 · Journal of sports science & medicine
Show more