Quality of Cohort Studies Reporting Post the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement

Jalal Poorolajal; Zahra Cheraghi; Amin Doosti Irani; Shahab Rezaeian

doi:10.4178/epih/e2011005

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Epidemiol Health > Volume 33; 2011 > Article

Brief Communication Quality of Cohort Studies Reporting Post the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Jalal Poorolajal¹, Zahra Cheraghi², Amin Doosti Irani², Shahab Rezaeian²; Epidemiol Health 2011;33:e2011005.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4178/epih/e2011005
Published online: June 7, 2011

¹Research Center for Health Sciences and Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran.

²Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran.

Correspondence: Jalal Poorolajal, MD, PhD. Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Shahid Fahmideh Ave., Hamadan 65157838695, Iran. Tel: +98-811-8260661, Fax: +98-811-8255301, poorolajal@umsha.ac.ir

• Received: March 15, 2011 • Accepted: May 11, 2011

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

prev next

28,405 Views
174 Download
50 Crossref

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
INTRODUCTION
METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
NOTES
REFERENCES

Abstract

The quality of reporting of cohort studies published in the most prestigious scientific medical journals was investigated to indicate to what extent the items in the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist are addressed. Six top scientific medical journals with high impact factor were selected including New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, Lancet, British Medical Journal, Archive of Internal Medicine, and Canadian Medical Association Journal. Ten cohort studies published in 2010 were selected randomly from each journal. The percentage of items in the STROBE checklist that were addressed in each study was investigated. The total percentage of items addressed by these studies was 69.3 (95% confidence interval: 59.6 to 79.0). We concluded that reporting of cohort studies published in the most prestigious scientific medical journals is not clear enough yet. The reporting of other types of observational studies such as case-control and cross-sectional studies particularly those being published in less prestigious journals expected to be much more imprecise.
Keywords: STROBE statement, Cohort studies, Observational studies, Reporting

INTRODUCTION

Randomized trials are generally considered the gold standard for evaluating both the efficacy and the potential side effects of new therapeutic or preventive interventions in both clinical medicine and public health [1]. However, much of the biomedical research into the cause of diseases comes from observational studies [2]. The results of these studies should be reported as transparently as possible "so that readers can follow what was planned, what was done, what was found, and what conclusions were drawn" [3]. Unfortunately, reporting of observational research is neither precise nor clear enough to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence [4, 5].

To improve the reporting of observational research, a group of experts developed a checklist of items known as the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement [6]. The STROBE statement was developed in 2007 to assist authors in report writing of observational studies, including cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies, to support editors and reviewers in considering such manuscript for publication, and to help readers in appraising published articles critically [3].

Concerning valuable recommendations made in this statement, expected that reporting of observational studies published after 2007 being improved enough to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence. The present study was set up to investigate the quality of reporting of cohort studies published in the most prestigious scientific medical journals and to indicate to what extent the items in STROBE checklist are noticed by both authors and publishers.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study and selected six top scientific medical journals with high impact factor (IF) among the most prestigious and important medical journals indexed in international databases. These included New England Journal of Medicine (N Engl J Med) (IF 50.017), Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) (IF 31.718), Lancet (IF 28.409), British Medical Journal (BMJ) (IF 12.827), Archives of Internal Medicine (Arch Intern Med) (IF 9.110), and Canadian Medical Association Journal (Can Med Assoc J) (IF 7.464). We were to include Nature and Annals of Internal Medicine in this survey, but they were not open access journals.

Among the observational studies, cohort studies are much more expensive and take longer follow-up time than case-control and cross-sectional studies. Therefore, the results obtained from cohort studies are of substantially superior quality to other observational studies. In fact, cohort studies are considered the gold standard in observational epidemiology. Accordingly, we selected cohort studies, either prospective or retrospective, for this evaluation.

We randomly selected 10 cohort studies published in each of the six medical journals from January to August 2010. To do so, we sorted the articles from newly published articles to the old ones. Then, looked for the cohort studies to find ten eligible articles. If there were not enough cohort studies, we searched second half of 2009 to obtain additional studies. Accordingly, we enrolled 60 cohort studies from six prestigious scientific medical journals. The studies were randomly assigned to four reviewers through drawing lots. The reviewers independently made the decisions on the number of items, from the STROBE checklist, which were addressed in the selected studies. The reviewers were not blinded to the names of the studies' authors and journals.

In order to check the reliability of the four reviewers' judgment on the quality of reporting of cohort studies, we conducted two consecutive pilot studies as follows. First, an article was randomly selected from JAMA. All four reviewers assessed the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence reported in the same article using the predetermined checklist of items. The disagreements were discussed to reach the same perception of the checklist in order to increase the between reviewers reliability. Then, the four reviewers evaluated the quality of reporting of another article that was randomly selected. There was no significant differences between the reviewers' judgment in the second pilot study (p=0.823).

In order to assess the validity of the reviewers' judgments, two reviewers made decision on the quality of reporting of each cohort study independently. Any disagreements were resolved by adjudication with a third author.

The STROBE statement included a checklist of 22 items. In order to estimate the quality of reporting of cohort studies more accurately, we divided the items into 47 sub-items (Table 1). We considered three choices for each sub-item (reported/not reported/not applicable). The percentage of each sub-item addressed in the selected articles was estimated. The total percentage for all sub-items was reported.

All statistical analysis was performed at 95% significant level using statistical software Stata version 10.0 (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA).

RESULTS

In this survey, 60 cohort studies were selected for evaluation including 10 studies from the six prestigious scientific medical journals including: N Engl J Med, JAMA, Lancet, BMJ, Arch Intern Med, and Can Med Assoc J. From these, 56 studies were published in 2010 and four studies in 2009. The percentage of items and sub-items addressed by these studies are summarized in Table 1. The sub-items were not applicable in 7.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3% to 13.0%), were not reported in 23.6% (95% CI, 15.3% to 31.5%), and were reported in 69.3% (95% CI, 59.6% to 79.0%) of the cohort studies.

Of 47 sub-items investigated in this survey, nine sub-items were reported 100%, 22 sub-items were addressed in more than 90% of the studies, 28 sub-items were included in more than 75% of the studies, and 32 sub-items were addressed in more than 50% of the studies.

DISCUSSION

STROBE checklist of items provides valuable recommendations for both authors to report the results of observational studies clearly as well as for editors, reviewers, and readers to appraise such reports critically [3]. On overall, almost 69.3% of the items and sub-items in STROBE checklist were addressed by cohort studies published in six top scientific medical journals three year after dissemination of STROBE statement.

However, what has happened to the reports of other types of observational studies? The results of the present study represent the reporting of cohort studies published in six prestigious scientific medical journals that generally accept the well-done and well-written studies. However, there are numerous observational studies, the results of which are published in other less fastidious peer-reviewed medical journals. Thus, it is expected that the quality of reporting of such studies is much poorer than what reported in the present study, although the result of present study is not desirable enough. Furthermore, cohort studies are much more expensive and take longer follow-up time than other types of observational studies such as case-control and cross-sectional design. Hence, the reporting of cohort studies is generally expected to be of substantially superior quality to other observational studies. Accordingly, if this survey had been planned to assess reporting of case-control or cross-sectional studies, the estimated result would be much more undesirable.

We found no similar studies but one. Poorolajal et al. [7] conducted a similar study in 2007 to assess the reporting of cohort studies before STROBE statement being issued. However, the design, the results, and the number of sub-items, which were evaluated in that study, was not comparable with that of the present study.

The present study had a number of limitations. First, the limited number of studies evaluated in the present study may increase the possibility of random error. Second, randomly selection of cohort studies from a few prestigious medical journals may increase the possibility of selection bias. Third, the value of all sub-items was not really the same. Hence, adding up all percentages to estimate a summary measure might not be reasonable, although was done to help the readers make an overall judgment.

This result of the present survey represents the quality of the reporting of cohort studies in top scientific medical journals. Hence, we can generalize the results of this survey neither to other types of observational studies nor to the publication of less fastidious peer-reviewed medical journals.

We concluded that reporting of cohort studies published in the most prestigious scientific medical journals is not clear and desirable enough yet. The reporting of other types of observational studies such as case-control and cross-sectional studies particularly those being published in less fastidious peer-reviewed journals is expected to be much more imprecise. This issue should be the focus of the both authors' and editors' special attention when reporting and/or reviewing the reports of observational studies.

NOTES

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare for this study.

This article is available from: http://e-epih.org/.

REFERENCES

1. Gordis L. Epidemiology. 2008. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders.
2. Glasziou P, Vandenbroucke JP, Chalmers I. Assessing the quality of research. BMJ 2004;328:39-41. 14703546.Article PubMed PMC
3. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. PLoS Med 2007;4:e296. 17941714.Article PubMed PMC
4. Pocock SJ, Collier TJ, Dandreo KJ, de Stavola BL, Goldman MB, Kalish LA, et al. Issues in the reporting of epidemiological studies: a survey of recent practice. BMJ 2004;329:883. 15469946.Article PubMed PMC
5. Tooth L, Ware R, Bain C, Purdie DM, Dobson A. Quality of reporting of observational longitudinal research. Am J Epidemiol 2005;161:280-288. 15671260.Article PubMed
6. Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Mulrow CD, Pocock SJ, et al. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 2007;4:e297. 17941715.Article PubMed PMC
7. Poorolajal J, Tajik P, Yazdizadeh B, Sehat M, Salehi AR, Rezaei M, et al. Quality assessment of the reporting of cohort studies before STROBE statement. Iranian J Epidemiol 2009;5:17-26 (Persian).

Table 1

Percentage of items in STROBE checklist which were addressed in reports of cohort studies published in six top scientific medical journals in 2010 (n (%))

Item	Recommendation	Not applicable	Not reported	Reported
1a	Indicate the study’s design in the title/abstract	0 (0.0)	15 (25.0)	45 (75.0)
1b	Provide in the abstract an informative and balanced summary	0 (0.0)	3 (5.0)	57 (95.0)
Introduction
2	Explain the scientific background and rationale for the investigation	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	60 (100.0)
3	State specific objectives, including any pre-specified hypotheses	0 (0.0)	1 (1.7)	59 (98.3)
Methods
4	Present key elements of study design early in the paper	0 (0.0)	21 (35.0)	39 (65.0)
5	Describe locations	0 (0.0)	2 (3.3)	58 (96.7)
5	Describe recruitment dates	0 (0.0)	2 (3.3)	58 (96.7)
5	Describe periods of follow-up	0 (0.0)	4 (6.7)	56 (93.3)
6a	Give the eligibility criteria	0 (0.0)	4 (6.7)	56 (93.3)
6a	Describe the methods of follow-up	0 (0.0)	2 (3.3)	58 (96.7)
6b	Give matching criteria	54 (90.0)	0 (0.0)	6 (10.0)
6b	Give number of exposed and unexposed in matched studies	52 (86.7)	5 (8.3)	3 (5.0)
7	Clearly define all outcomes	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	60 (100.0)
7	Clearly define all exposures	0 (0.0)	6 (10.0)	54 (90.0)
7	Clearly define all predictors	0 (0.0)	2 (3.3)	58 (96.7)
7	Clearly define all potential confounders	0 (0.0)	9 (15.0)	51 (85.0)
7	Clearly define all effect modifiers	0 (0.0)	41 (68.3)	19 (31.7)
8	Give sources of data	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	60 (100.0)
8	Method of measurement	0 (0.0)	1 (1.7)	59 (98.3)
9	Describe any efforts to address potential sources of bias	0 (0.0)	51 (85.0)	9 (15.0)
10	Explain how the study size was arrived at	33 (55.0)	15 (25.0)	12 (20.0)
11	Describe which groupings were chosen (if applicable)	10 (16.7)	8 (13.3)	42 (70.0)
12a	Describe all statistical methods	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	60 (100.0)
12a	Describe all statistical software	0 (0.0)	14 (23.3)	46 (76.7)
12b	Describe any methods used to examine subgroups and interaction	0 (0.0)	42 (70.0)	18 (30.0)
12c	Explain how missing data were addressed	0 (0.0)	33 (55.0)	27 (45.0)
12d	explain how loss to follow-up was addressed	3 (5.0)	42 (70.0)	15 (25.0)
12e	Describe any sensitivity analyses	3 (5.0)	44 (73.3)	0 (21.7)
Results
13a	Report numbers of individuals at each stage of study	5 (8.3)	29 (48.4)	26 (43.3)
13b	Give reasons for non-participation at each stage	5 (8.3)	42 (70.0)	13 (21.7)
13c	Consider use of a flow diagram	0 (0.0)	51 (85.0)	9 (15.0)
14a	Give characteristics of study participants	0 (0.0)	5 (8.3)	55 (81.7)
14b	Indicate the number of participants with missing data	4 (6.7)	37 (61.6)	19 (31.7)
14c	Summarize follow-up time	2 (3.3)	32 (53.4)	26 (43.3)
15	Report numbers of outcome events or summary measures	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	60 (100.0)
16a	Give unadjusted estimates	0 (0.0)	23 (38.3)	37 (61.7)
16a	Give confounder-adjusted estimates	1 (1.7)	6 (10.0)	53 (88.3)
16a	Give estimates precision/confidence interval	0 (0.0)	2 (3.3)	58 (96.7)
16b	Report category boundaries when continuous variables were categorized	8 (13.3)	7 (11.7)	45 (75.0)
16c	Consider translating estimates of relative risk into absolute risk (If relevant)	21 (35.0)	32 (53.3)	7 (11.7)
17	Report other analyses done e.g., subgroups analysis and sensitivity analyses	0 (0.0)	19 (31.7)	41 (68.3)
Discussion
18	Summarize key results with reference to study objectives	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	60 (100.0)
19	Discuss limitations of the study	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	60 (100.0)
20	Give a cautious interpretation of results considering objectives	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	60 (100.0)
20	Explain results from similar studies	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	60 (100.0)
21	Discuss the generalizability of the study results	0 (0.0)	6 (10.0)	54 (90.0)
Other information
22	Give the source of funding and the role of the funders	0 (0.0)	1 (1.7)	59 (98.3)
1-22	Total	(7.1)	(23.6)	(69.3)

STOBE, The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology.

Figure & Data

References

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Age is just a number: The role of advanced age in predicting complications following ventral hernia repair with component separation
Lauren E. Berger, Samuel S. Huffman, Grace Bloomfield, Julian K. Marable, Daisy L. Spoer, Holly D. Shan, Romina Deldar, Karen K. Evans, Parag Bhanot, Yewande R. Alimi
The American Journal of Surgery.2024; 229: 162. CrossRef
Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Everyday Neurosurgical Practice in Alsace, France: Lessons Learned, Current Perspectives, and Future Challenges—Preliminary Results of a Longitudinal Multicentric Study Registry
Guillaume Dannhoff, Charles-Henry Mallereau, Mario Ganau, Biagio Roberto Carangelo, Giorgio Spatola, Julien Todeschi, Lara Prisco, Rodolfo Maduri, Marie des Neiges Santin, Sandrine Woelffel, Isabella Mastrobuono, Jimmy Voirin, Franco Moruzzi, Beniamino Na
Medicina.2024; 60(3): 390. CrossRef
Chemotherapy‐induced cognitive impairment in breast cancer survivors: A systematic review of studies from 2000 to 2021
Omid Amani, Mohammad Ali Mazaheri, Mona Malekzadeh Moghani, Fariba Zarani, Rasool Hamidi Choolabi
Cancer Reports.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Two-Year Results of a Five-Year Personalized Integrative Obesity Coaching Program (IBO) Based upon a Systems Health Perspective and an Evolutionary Longitudinal Study Approach
Sander M. Brink, Heleen M. Wortelboer, Ard F. ten Hoff, Cornelis H. Emmelot, Tommy L. S. Visscher, Herman A. van Wietmarschen
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.2024; 21(6): 807. CrossRef
The utility of axial imaging among selected patients in the early postoperative period after pancreatectomy
Grace C. Bloomfield, Sami Shoucair, Aradhya Nigam, Byoung Uk Park, Thomas M. Fishbein, Pejman Radkani, Emily R. Winslow
Surgery.2024; 176(4): 1171. CrossRef
ONIS-STOMA: An observational multicentre prospective protocol study of stoma patients
Danila Maculotti, Giulia Villa, Andrea Poliani, Nicola Angelo Caione, Pier Raffaele Spena, Duilio Fiorenzo Manara
MethodsX.2024; 13: 102986. CrossRef
Pathology stewardship in emergency departments: a single-site, retrospective, cohort study of the value of C-reactive protein in patients with suspected sepsis
Stephanie Athan, David Athan, Michael Wong, Nurul Hussain, Venkat Vangaveti, Vinay Gangathimmaiah, Robert Norton
Pathology.2023; 55(5): 673. CrossRef
The relation between obesity and breast cancer risk in women by considering menstruation status and geographical variations: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Tania Dehesh, Shohreh Fadaghi, Mehrnaz Seyedi, Elham Abolhadi, Mehran Ilaghi, Parisa Shams, Fatemeh Ajam, Mohammad Amin Mosleh-Shirazi, Paria Dehesh
BMC Women's Health.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Objective Measurement of Ball-Handling Proficiency in Wheelchair Sports: A Systematic Review
Viola C. Altmann, Barry S. Mason, Tijmen Geurts, Sanne A. J. H. van de Camp, Yves C. Vanlandewijck
Frontiers in Rehabilitation Sciences.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
The Attention Network Test in Parkinson and Lewy Body Disease: A Systematic Review
Jihyun Yang, Dana Pourzinal, Toby Rheinberger, David A. Copland, Katie L. McMahon, Gerard J. Byrne, Nadeeka N. Dissanayaka
Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology.2022; 35(1): 1. CrossRef
Longitudinal association between caesarean section birth and cardio‐vascular risk profiles among adolescents in Australia
Tahmina Begum, Yaqoot Fatima, Satyamurthy Anuradha, Md Hasan, Abdullah Al Mamun
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health.2022; 46(6): 776. CrossRef
Associations of caesarean section with body mass and waist circumference trajectories from age 2 to 13 years: A nationally representative birth cohort study in Australia
Tahmina Begum, Yaqoot Fatima, Francisco Perales, Satyamurthy Anuradha, Abdullah Mamun
Pediatric Obesity.2021;[Epub] CrossRef
Investigating the real impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the daily neurosurgical practice?
G. Dannhoff, H. Cebula, S. Chibbaro, M. Ganau, J. Todeschi, C.-H. Mallereau, J. Pottecher, F. Proust, I. Ollivier
Neurochirurgie.2021; 67(2): 99. CrossRef
Prevalence of Depression in Iranian College Students: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Zahra Jaafari, Akram Farhadi, Faramarz Amin Lari, Fatemeh Sadat Mousavi, Hadis Moltafet, Elaheh Dashti, Maryam Marzban
Iranian Journal of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences.2021;[Epub] CrossRef
A systematic review of the quality of conduct and reporting of survival analyses of tuberculosis outcomes in Africa
Moses M. Ngari, Susanne Schmitz, Christopher Maronga, Lazarus K. Mramba, Michel Vaillant
BMC Medical Research Methodology.2021;[Epub] CrossRef
General practice attendances among patients attending a post-COVID-19 clinic: a pilot study
John Broughan, Geoff McCombe, Gordana Avramovic, Des Crowley, Cheyenne Downey, Joanne Downey O'Sullivan, Ronan Fawsitt, Tina McHugh, Eileen O'Connor, Carla Perrotta, Aoife G Cotter, John S Lambert, Walter Cullen
BJGP Open.2021; 5(3): BJGPO.2021.0016. CrossRef
Sleep disturbances and cognitive impairment in schizophrenia spectrum disorders: a systematic review and narrative synthesis
Sean P. Carruthers, Gemma Brunetti, Susan L. Rossell
Sleep Medicine.2021; 84: 8. CrossRef
Bedside estimates of dead space using end-tidal CO2 are independently associated with mortality in ARDS
Paola Lecompte-Osorio, Steven D. Pearson, Cole H. Pieroni, Matthew R. Stutz, Anne S. Pohlman, Julie Lin, Jesse B. Hall, Yu M. Htwe, Patrick G. Belvitch, Steven M. Dudek, Krysta Wolfe, Bhakti K. Patel, John P. Kress
Critical Care.2021;[Epub] CrossRef
A meta-review demonstrates improved reporting quality of qualitative reviews following the publication of COREQ- and ENTREQ-checklists, regardless of modest uptake
Y. de Jong, E. M. van der Willik, J. Milders, C. G. N. Voorend, Rachael L. Morton, F. W. Dekker, Y. Meuleman, M. van Diepen
BMC Medical Research Methodology.2021;[Epub] CrossRef
Using STROBE checklist to assess the reporting quality of observational studies affiliated with Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, and its correlates: a scientometric study from Iran
Negin Rahmani, Alireza Salehi, Hossein Molavi Vardanjani, Maryam Marzban, Arezoo Behbood
Scientometrics.2020; 122(2): 989. CrossRef
Completeness of reporting of case reports in high‐impact medical journals
José A. Calvache, Maira Vera‐Montoya, Darío Ordoñez, Adrian V. Hernandez, Douglas Altman, David Moher
European Journal of Clinical Investigation.2020;[Epub] CrossRef
Study Protocol: Prospective, observational, cohort study of COVID-19 in General Practice (North Dublin COVID-19 Cohort [‘ANTICIPATE’] Study)
Walter Cullen, Gordana Avramovic, John Broughan, Mary-Carmel Burke, Aoife Cotter, Des Crowley, Joanne Downey, Paul Duggan, Ronan Fawsitt, Allys Guerandel, Eilis Hennessy, Cecily Kelleher, Gerald Mills, Geoff McCombe, Tina McHugh, Eileen O’Connor, Carla Pe
HRB Open Research.2020; 3: 67. CrossRef
TRIPOD statement: a preliminary pre-post analysis of reporting and methods of prediction models
Amir H Zamanipoor Najafabadi, Chava L Ramspek, Friedo W Dekker, Pauline Heus, Lotty Hooft, Karel G M Moons, Wilco C Peul, Gary S Collins, Ewout W Steyerberg, Merel van Diepen
BMJ Open.2020; 10(9): e041537. CrossRef
Quality, Equity and Utility of Observational Studies during 10 Years of Implementing the Structured Operational Research and Training Initiative in 72 Countries
Rony Zachariah, Stefanie Rust, Pruthu Thekkur, Mohammed Khogali, Ajay MV Kumar, Karapet Davtyan, Ermias Diro, Srinath Satyanarayana, Olga Denisiuk, Johan van Griensven, Veerle Hermans, Selma Dar Berger, Saw Saw, Anthony Reid, Abraham Aseffa, Anthony D Har
Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease.2020; 5(4): 167. CrossRef
Causal models adjusting for time-varying confounding—a systematic review of the literature
Philip J Clare, Timothy A Dobbins, Richard P Mattick
International Journal of Epidemiology.2019; 48(1): 254. CrossRef
Epidemiology of multiple sclerosis in Iran: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Milad Azami, Mohammad Hossein YektaKooshali, Masoumeh Shohani, Ali Khorshidi, Leily Mahmudi, Aristeidis H. Katsanos
PLOS ONE.2019; 14(4): e0214738. CrossRef
Is latent tuberculosis infection challenging in Iranian health care workers? A systematic review and meta-analysis
Mohammad Hossein YektaKooshali, Farahnaz Movahedzadeh, Ali Alavi Foumani, Hoda Sabati, Alireza Jafari, HASNAIN SEYED EHTESHAM
PLOS ONE.2019; 14(10): e0223335. CrossRef
Effect of dietary habits on the risk of metabolic syndrome: Yazd Healthy Heart Project
Mohammadtaghi Sarebanhassanabadi, Seyed Jalil Mirhosseini, Masoud Mirzaei, Seyedeh Mahdieh Namayandeh, Mohammad Hossein Soltani, Mohammadreza Pakseresht, Ali Pedarzadeh, Zahra Baramesipour, Reza Faraji, Amin Salehi-Abargouei
Public Health Nutrition.2018; 21(6): 1139. CrossRef
Use of the STROBE Checklist to Evaluate the Reporting Quality of Observational Research in Obstetrics
April D. Adams, Rebecca S. Benner, Thomas W. Riggs, Nancy C. Chescheir
Obstetrics & Gynecology.2018; 132(2): 507. CrossRef
¿Es completo el reporte de los estudios observacionales publicados en la Revista Colombiana de Anestesiología? Estudio de corte transversal
Mary Bravo-Peña, Luis Barona-Fong, Julio Campo-López, Yeni Arroyave, José Andrés Calvache
Revista Colombiana de Anestesiología.2017; 45(1): 31. CrossRef
Assessing the completeness of reporting of observational studies in Colombian Journal of Anesthesiology. Cross sectional study
Mary Bravo-Peña, Luis Barona-Fong, Julio Campo-López, Yeni Arroyave, José Andrés Calvache
Colombian Journal of Anesthesiology.2017; 45(1): 31. CrossRef
Factors influencing quality of life following lower limb amputation for peripheral arterial occlusive disease
Fiona Davie-Smith, Elaine Coulter, Brian Kennon, Sally Wyke, Lorna Paul
Prosthetics & Orthotics International.2017; 41(6): 537. CrossRef
Assessing the completeness of reporting of observational studies in Colombian Journal of Anesthesiology. Cross sectional study☆
Mary Bravo-Peña, Luis Barona-Fong, Julio Campo-López, Yeni Arroyave, José Andrés Calvache
Colombian Journal of Anesthesiology.2017; 45(1): 31. CrossRef
Association between morning symptoms and physical activity in COPD: a systematic review
Amanda R. van Buul, Marise J. Kasteleyn, Niels H. Chavannes, Christian Taube
European Respiratory Review.2017; 26(143): 160033. CrossRef
Evaluation of the Endorsement of the STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association Studies (STREGA) Statement on the Reporting Quality of Published Genetic Association Studies
Darko Nedovic, Nikola Panic, Roberta Pastorino, Walter Ricciardi, Stefania Boccia
Journal of Epidemiology.2016; 26(8): 399. CrossRef
Recurrence of vaginal prolapse after total vaginal hysterectomy with concurrent vaginal uterosacral ligament suspension: comparison between normal-weight and overweight women
Carlo Rappa, Gabriele Saccone
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.2016; 215(5): 601.e1. CrossRef
Quality of Reporting and Study Design of CKD Cohort Studies Assessing Mortality in the Elderly Before and After STROBE: A Systematic Review
Anirudh Rao, Katharina Brück, Shona Methven, Rebecca Evans, Vianda S. Stel, Kitty J. Jager, Lotty Hooft, Yoav Ben-Shlomo, Fergus Caskey, Xu-jie Zhou
PLOS ONE.2016; 11(5): e0155078. CrossRef
The impact of trunk impairment on performance of wheelchair activities with a focus on wheelchair court sports: a systematic review
Viola C Altmann, Anne L Hart, Yves C Vanlandewijck, Jacques van Limbeek, Miranda L van Hooff
Sports Medicine - Open.2015;[Epub] CrossRef
Fundamentals of Clinical Outcomes Assessment for Spinal Disorders: Study Designs, Methodologies, and Analyses
Patrick Vavken, Anne Kathleen B. Ganal-Antonio, Francis H. Shen, Jens R. Chapman, Dino Samartzis
Global Spine Journal.2015; 5(2): 156. CrossRef
Scientific reporting is suboptimal for aspects that characterize genetic risk prediction studies: a review of published articles based on the Genetic RIsk Prediction Studies statement
Adriana I. Iglesias, Raluca Mihaescu, John P.A. Ioannidis, Muin J. Khoury, Julian Little, Cornelia M. van Duijn, A. Cecile J.W. Janssens
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology.2014; 67(5): 487. CrossRef
Cost-efficiency of knowledge creation
Rafael Struck, Georg Baumgarten, Maria Wittmann
Current Opinion in Anaesthesiology.2014; 27(2): 190. CrossRef
Using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement to Assess Reporting of Observational Trials in Hand Surgery
Amelia A. Sorensen, Robert D. Wojahn, Mary Claire Manske, Ryan P. Calfee
The Journal of Hand Surgery.2013; 38(8): 1584. CrossRef
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on the Work-Related Cause of de Quervain Tenosynovitis
Stéphane Stahl, Daniel Vida, Christoph Meisner, Oliver Lotter, Jens Rothenberger, Hans-Eberhard Schaller, Adelana Santos Stahl
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.2013; 132(6): 1479. CrossRef
Strategies to Improve Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting: A Critical and Systematic Review
Cristian Gonzalez-Gonzalez, Elena Lopez-Gonzalez, Maria T. Herdeiro, Adolfo Figueiras
Drug Safety.2013; 36(5): 317. CrossRef
The quality of reporting in clinical research: the CONSORT and STROBE initiatives
Davide Bolignano, Francesco Mattace-Raso, Claudia Torino, Graziella D’Arrigo, Samar Abd ElHafeez, Fabio Provenzano, Carmine Zoccali, Giovanni Tripepi
Aging Clinical and Experimental Research.2013; 25(1): 9. CrossRef
Evaluation of the Endorsement of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) Statement on the Quality of Published Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses
Nikola Panic, Emanuele Leoncini, Giulio de Belvis, Walter Ricciardi, Stefania Boccia, Gemma Elizabeth Derrick
PLoS ONE.2013; 8(12): e83138. CrossRef
Impact of STROBE Statement Publication on Quality of Observational Study Reporting: Interrupted Time Series versus Before-After Analysis
Sylvie Bastuji-Garin, Emilie Sbidian, Caroline Gaudy-Marqueste, Emilie Ferrat, Jean-Claude Roujeau, Marie-Aleth Richard, Florence Canoui-Poitrine, C. Mary Schooling
PLoS ONE.2013; 8(8): e64733. CrossRef
Reporting Quality of Abstracts Presented at the European Association of Urology Meeting: A Critical Assessment
Marco De Sio, Rachid Yakoubi, Cosimo De Nunzio, Rocco Damiano, Raffaele Balsamo, Camine Di Palma, Francesco Cantiello, Giuseppina Azzarito, Vicenzo Mirone, Andrea Tubaro, Riccardo Autorino
Journal of Urology.2012; 188(5): 1883. CrossRef
Male infertility after endoscopic Totally Extraperitoneal (Tep) hernia repair (Main): rationale and design of a prospective observational cohort study
Nelleke Schouten, Thijs van Dalen, Niels Smakman, Sjoerd G Elias, Cees van de Water, Roan J Spermon, Laurens Sibinga Mulder, Ine P J Burgmans
BMC Surgery.2012;[Epub] CrossRef
Perioperative effectiveness research using large databases
Robert E. Freundlich, Sachin Kheterpal
Best Practice & Research Clinical Anaesthesiology.2011; 25(4): 489. CrossRef

PubReader
ePub Link
Cite

CITE

export Copy Format

Close

XML Download

Quality of Cohort Studies Reporting Post the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement

Item	Recommendation	Not applicable	Not reported	Reported
1a	Indicate the study’s design in the title/abstract	0 (0.0)	15 (25.0)	45 (75.0)
1b	Provide in the abstract an informative and balanced summary	0 (0.0)	3 (5.0)	57 (95.0)
Introduction
2	Explain the scientific background and rationale for the investigation	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	60 (100.0)
3	State specific objectives, including any pre-specified hypotheses	0 (0.0)	1 (1.7)	59 (98.3)
Methods
4	Present key elements of study design early in the paper	0 (0.0)	21 (35.0)	39 (65.0)
5	Describe locations	0 (0.0)	2 (3.3)	58 (96.7)
5	Describe recruitment dates	0 (0.0)	2 (3.3)	58 (96.7)
5	Describe periods of follow-up	0 (0.0)	4 (6.7)	56 (93.3)
6a	Give the eligibility criteria	0 (0.0)	4 (6.7)	56 (93.3)
6a	Describe the methods of follow-up	0 (0.0)	2 (3.3)	58 (96.7)
6b	Give matching criteria	54 (90.0)	0 (0.0)	6 (10.0)
6b	Give number of exposed and unexposed in matched studies	52 (86.7)	5 (8.3)	3 (5.0)
7	Clearly define all outcomes	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	60 (100.0)
7	Clearly define all exposures	0 (0.0)	6 (10.0)	54 (90.0)
7	Clearly define all predictors	0 (0.0)	2 (3.3)	58 (96.7)
7	Clearly define all potential confounders	0 (0.0)	9 (15.0)	51 (85.0)
7	Clearly define all effect modifiers	0 (0.0)	41 (68.3)	19 (31.7)
8	Give sources of data	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	60 (100.0)
8	Method of measurement	0 (0.0)	1 (1.7)	59 (98.3)
9	Describe any efforts to address potential sources of bias	0 (0.0)	51 (85.0)	9 (15.0)
10	Explain how the study size was arrived at	33 (55.0)	15 (25.0)	12 (20.0)
11	Describe which groupings were chosen (if applicable)	10 (16.7)	8 (13.3)	42 (70.0)
12a	Describe all statistical methods	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	60 (100.0)
12a	Describe all statistical software	0 (0.0)	14 (23.3)	46 (76.7)
12b	Describe any methods used to examine subgroups and interaction	0 (0.0)	42 (70.0)	18 (30.0)
12c	Explain how missing data were addressed	0 (0.0)	33 (55.0)	27 (45.0)
12d	explain how loss to follow-up was addressed	3 (5.0)	42 (70.0)	15 (25.0)
12e	Describe any sensitivity analyses	3 (5.0)	44 (73.3)	0 (21.7)
Results
13a	Report numbers of individuals at each stage of study	5 (8.3)	29 (48.4)	26 (43.3)
13b	Give reasons for non-participation at each stage	5 (8.3)	42 (70.0)	13 (21.7)
13c	Consider use of a flow diagram	0 (0.0)	51 (85.0)	9 (15.0)
14a	Give characteristics of study participants	0 (0.0)	5 (8.3)	55 (81.7)
14b	Indicate the number of participants with missing data	4 (6.7)	37 (61.6)	19 (31.7)
14c	Summarize follow-up time	2 (3.3)	32 (53.4)	26 (43.3)
15	Report numbers of outcome events or summary measures	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	60 (100.0)
16a	Give unadjusted estimates	0 (0.0)	23 (38.3)	37 (61.7)
16a	Give confounder-adjusted estimates	1 (1.7)	6 (10.0)	53 (88.3)
16a	Give estimates precision/confidence interval	0 (0.0)	2 (3.3)	58 (96.7)
16b	Report category boundaries when continuous variables were categorized	8 (13.3)	7 (11.7)	45 (75.0)
16c	Consider translating estimates of relative risk into absolute risk (If relevant)	21 (35.0)	32 (53.3)	7 (11.7)
17	Report other analyses done e.g., subgroups analysis and sensitivity analyses	0 (0.0)	19 (31.7)	41 (68.3)
Discussion
18	Summarize key results with reference to study objectives	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	60 (100.0)
19	Discuss limitations of the study	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	60 (100.0)
20	Give a cautious interpretation of results considering objectives	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	60 (100.0)
20	Explain results from similar studies	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	60 (100.0)
21	Discuss the generalizability of the study results	0 (0.0)	6 (10.0)	54 (90.0)
Other information
22	Give the source of funding and the role of the funders	0 (0.0)	1 (1.7)	59 (98.3)
1-22	Total	(7.1)	(23.6)	(69.3)

Table 1 Percentage of items in STROBE checklist which were addressed in reports of cohort studies published in six top scientific medical journals in 2010 (n (%))

STOBE, The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology.