The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies

Erik von Elm, Douglas G Altman, Matthias Egger, Stuart J Pocock, Peter C Gøtzsche, Jan P Vandenbroucke, STROBE Initiative, Erik von Elm, Douglas G Altman, Matthias Egger, Stuart J Pocock, Peter C Gøtzsche, Jan P Vandenbroucke, STROBE Initiative

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 studies.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

References

    1. Glasziou P, Vandenbroucke JP, Chalmers I. Assessing the quality of research. BMJ. 2004;328:39–41.
    1. Black N. Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care. BMJ. 1996;312:1215–1218.
    1. Papanikolaou PN, Christidi GD, Ioannidis JP. Comparison of evidence on harms of medical interventions in randomized and nonrandomized studies. CMAJ. 2006;174:635–641.
    1. Jüni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ. 2001;323:42–46.
    1. Egger M, Schneider M, Davey Smith G. Spurious precision? Meta-analysis of observational studies. BMJ. 1998;316:140–144.
    1. Pocock SJ, Collier TJ, Dandreo KJ, de Stavola BL, Goldman MB, et al. Issues in the reporting of epidemiological studies: a survey of recent practice. BMJ. 2004;329:883.
    1. Lee W, Bindman J, Ford T, Glozier N, Moran P, et al. Bias in psychiatric case-control studies: literature survey. Br J Psychiatry. 2007;190:204–209.
    1. Tooth L, Ware R, Bain C, Purdie DM, Dobson A. Quality of reporting of observational longitudinal research. Am J Epidemiol. 2005;161:280–288.
    1. Bogardus ST, Jr., Concato J, Feinstein AR. Clinical epidemiological quality in molecular genetic research: the need for methodological standards. JAMA. 1999;281:1919–1926.
    1. Anonymous. Guidelines for documentation of epidemiologic studies. Epidemiology Work Group of the Interagency Regulatory Liaison Group. Am J Epidemiol. 1981;114:609–613.
    1. Rennie D. CONSORT revised—improving the reporting of randomized trials. JAMA. 2001;285:2006–2007.
    1. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet. 2001;357:1191–1194.
    1. Moher D, Altman DG, Schulz KF, Elbourne DR. Opportunities and challenges for improving the quality of reporting clinical research: CONSORT and beyond. CMAJ. 2004;171:349–350.
    1. Plint AC, Moher D, Morrison A, Schulz K, Altman DG, et al. Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review. Med J Aust. 2006;185:263–267.
    1. Egger M, Jüni P, Bartlett C. Value of flow diagrams in reports of randomized controlled trials. JAMA. 2001;285:1996–1999.
    1. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, et al. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet. 1999;354:1896–1900.
    1. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, et al. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD Initiative. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:40–44.
    1. Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Mulrow CD, et al. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration. PLoS Med. 2007;4:e297. for the STROBE Initiative. doi: .
    1. Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Mulrow CD, et al. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2007. for the STROBE Initiative. In press.
    1. Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Mulrow CD, et al. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration. Epidemiology. 2007. for the STROBE Initiative. In press.
    1. Ioannidis JP, Evans SJ, Gøtzsche PC, O'Neill RT, Altman DG, et al. Better reporting of harms in randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141:781–788.
    1. Campbell MK, Elbourne DR, Altman DG. CONSORT statement: extension to cluster randomised trials. BMJ. 2004;328:702–708.
    1. Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Altman DG, Pocock SJ, Evans SJ. Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. JAMA. 2006;295:1152–1160.
    1. Gagnier JJ, Boon H, Rochon P, Moher D, Barnes J, et al. Reporting randomized, controlled trials of herbal interventions: an elaborated CONSORT statement. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144:364–367.
    1. Ioannidis JP, Gwinn M, Little J, Higgins JP, Bernstein JL, et al. A road map for efficient and reliable human genome epidemiology. Nat Genet. 2006;38:3–5.
    1. Ormerod AD. CONSORT your submissions: an update for authors. Br J Dermatol. 2001;145:378–379.
    1. Schriger DL. Suggestions for improving the reporting of clinical research: the role of narrative. Ann Emerg Med. 2005;45:437–443.
    1. Sanderson S, Tatt ID, Higgins JP. Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography. Int J Epidemiol. 2007;36:666–676.
    1. Bartlett C, Sterne J, Egger M. What is newsworthy? Longitudinal study of the reporting of medical research in two British newspapers. BMJ. 2002;325:81–84.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors et collaborateurs

Les conditions médicales

Interventions en matière de drogue

3
S'abonner