Assessing the Quality of Reporting of Observational Studies in Cancer

Papathanasiou, Afroditi A.; Ζιντζαράς, Ηλίας

doi:10.1016/j.annepidem.2009.09.007

Cited by 41 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The average STROBE score of 72% (range 50%-86%) obtained in our study is on par or higher than that reported in family medicine, 52 periodontology, 105 oncology, 78 and gastroenterology. 75 The reporting of bias, missing data, the reasons for and the timeline of data exclusion, funding sources, and explanations of study size have been identified by multiple groups as major weaknesses of observational studies in other fields of medicine.…”

Section: Strobecontrasting

confidence: 42%

“…75 The reporting of bias, missing data, the reasons for and the timeline of data exclusion, funding sources, and explanations of study size have been identified by multiple groups as major weaknesses of observational studies in other fields of medicine. 46,52,78,105 These are not unique problems to those using the STROBE checklist, as other groups have identified reporting of bias and funding as substandard and have used other criteria, such as the Standards for the Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) and custom checklists. 11,15,97 The STROBE Statement was originally designed to give "guidance to authors about how to improve reporting of observational studies and [facilitate] critical appraisal and interpretation of studies by reviewers, journal editors and readers.…”

Section: Strobementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Case-control studies in neurosurgery

Nesvick¹,

Thompson

Boop

et al. 2014

JNS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Object Observational studies, such as cohort and case-control studies, are valuable instruments in evidence-based medicine. Case-control studies, in particular, are becoming increasingly popular in the neurosurgical literature due to their low cost and relative ease of execution; however, no one has yet systematically assessed these types of studies for quality in methodology and reporting. Methods The authors performed a literature search using PubMed/MEDLINE to identify all studies that explicitly identified themselves as “case-control” and were published in the JNS Publishing Group journals (Journal of Neurosurgery, Journal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics, Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, and Neurosurgical Focus) or Neurosurgery. Each paper was evaluated for 22 descriptive variables and then categorized as having either met or missed the basic definition of a case-control study. All studies that evaluated risk factors for a well-defined outcome were considered true case-control studies. The authors sought to identify key features or phrases that were or were not predictive of a true case-control study. Those papers that satisfied the definition were further evaluated using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist. Results The search detected 67 papers that met the inclusion criteria, of which 32 (48%) represented true case-control studies. The frequency of true case-control studies has not changed with time. Use of odds ratios (ORs) and logistic regression (LR) analysis were strong positive predictors of true case-control studies (for odds ratios, OR 15.33 and 95% CI 4.52–51.97; for logistic regression analysis, OR 8.77 and 95% CI 2.69–28.56). Conversely, negative predictors included focus on a procedure/intervention (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.13–0.998) and use of the word “outcome” in the Results section (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.082–0.65). After exclusion of nested case-control studies, the negative correlation between focus on a procedure/intervention and true case-control studies was strengthened (OR 0.053, 95% CI 0.0064–0.44). There was a trend toward a negative association between the use of survival analysis or Kaplan-Meier curves and true case-control studies (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.015–1.12). True case-control studies were no more likely than their counterparts to use a potential study design “expert” (OR 1.50, 95% CI 0.57–3.95). The overall average STROBE score was 72% (range 50–86%). Examples of reporting deficiencies were reporting of bias (28%), missing data (55%), and funding (44%). Conclusions The results of this analysis show that the majority of studies in the neurosurgical literature that identify themselves as “case-control” studies are, in fact, labeled incorrectly. Positive and negative predictors were identified. The authors provide several recommendations that may reverse the incorrect and inappropriate use of the term “case-control” and improve the quality of design and reporting of true case-control studies in neurosurgery.

show abstract

Section: Strobecontrasting

confidence: 42%

Section: Strobementioning

confidence: 99%

Case-control studies in neurosurgery

Nesvick¹,

Thompson

Boop

et al. 2014

JNS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The mean value of methodological quality score was 12.3 6 3.3, and the median value was 12 of 28. For comparison, in a recent study ( 19 ) investigating the quality of reporting of observational studies in cancer according to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology statement, a score of 16 of 22 was achieved in at least 70% ( n = 171) of 244 analyzed studies. None of the studies received a favorable score on all items.…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Endovascular Treatment of Intracranial Unruptured Aneurysms: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Literature on Safety and Efficacy

Naggara

White²,

Guilbert³

et al. 2010

Radiology

257

141

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Guidelines such as the STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement have been developed and endorsed by many journals to improve reporting of biomedical research [5]. Inadequate or incomplete reporting has been shown in observational studies on general medical interventions that were published before introduction of STROBE [6] and in more recent evaluations that addressed specific research areas, including cancer [7], hand surgery [8], dermatology [9], plastic surgery [10], or magnetic resonance imaging [11].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The reporting of studies using routinely collected health data was often insufficient

Hemkens

Benchimol

Langan

et al. 2016

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo assess reporting quality of studies using routinely collected health data (RCD) to inform the REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely collected health Data (RECORD) guideline development.Study Design and SettingPubMed search for observational studies using RCD on any epidemiologic or clinical topic. Sample of studies published in 2012. Evaluation of five items based on the STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline and eight newly developed items for RCD studies.ResultsOf 124 included studies, 39 (31.5%) clearly described its design in title or abstract. Complete information to frame a focused research question, that is, on the population, intervention/exposure, and outcome, was provided for 51 studies (41.1%). In 44 studies where definitions of codes or classification algorithms would be necessary to operationalize such a research question, only nine (20.5%) reported all items adequately. In 81 studies describing multivariable analyses, 54 (66.7%) reported all variables used for modeling and 34 (42.0%) reported basic details required for replication. Database linkage was reported adequately in 12 of 41 studies (29.3%). Statements about data sharing/availability were rare (5/124; 4%).ConclusionMost RCD studies are insufficiently reported. Specific reporting guidelines and more awareness and education on their use are urgently needed.

show abstract

Assessing the Quality of Reporting of Observational Studies in Cancer

Cited by 41 publications

References 26 publications

Case-control studies in neurosurgery

Case-control studies in neurosurgery

Endovascular Treatment of Intracranial Unruptured Aneurysms: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Literature on Safety and Efficacy

The reporting of studies using routinely collected health data was often insufficient

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About