Evaluation of the Quality of Reporting of Observational Studies in Otorhinolaryngology - Based on the STROBE Statement

Abstract

BackgroundObservational studies are the most frequently published studies in literature. When randomized controlled trials cannot be conducted because of ethical or practical considerations, an observational study design is the first choice. The STROBE Statement (STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology) was developed to provide guidance on how to adequately report observational studies.ObjectivesThe objectives were 1) to evaluate the quality of reporting of observational studies of otorhinolaryngologic literature using the STROBE Statement checklist, 2) to compare the quality of reporting of observational studies in the top 5 Ear, Nose, Throat (ENT) journals versus the top 5 general medical journals and 3) to formulate recommendations to improve adequate reporting of observational research in otorhinolaryngologic literature.MethodsThe top 5 general medical journals and top 5 otorhinolaryngologic journals were selected based on their ISI Web of Knowledge impact factors. On August 3rd, 2015, we performed a PubMed search using different filters to retrieve observational articles from these journals. Studies were selected from 2010 to 2014 for the general medical journals and from 2015 for the ENT journals. We assessed all STROBE items to examine how many items were reported adequately for each journal type.ResultsThe articles in the top 5 general medical journals (n = 11) reported a mean of 69.2% (95% confidence interval (CI): 65.8%–72.7%; median 70.6%), whereas the top 5 ENT journals (n = 29) reported a mean of 51.4% (95% CI: 47.7%–55.0%; median 50.0%). The two journal types reported STROBE items significantly different (p < .001).ConclusionQuality of reporting of observational studies in otorhinolaryngologic articles can considerably enhance. The quality of reporting was better in general medical journals compared to ENT journals. To improve the quality of reporting of observational studies, we recommend authors and editors to endorse and actively implement the STROBE Statement.

Adherence to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Statement in Observational Studies Published in Iranian Medical Journals

“…Our study, similar to other studies ( 20 ), showed that the articles published in PubMed/ISI indexed journals were significantly more conformed to the statement. Yet, in our study and other studies ( 19 , 20 ), the conformity was not satisfactory even in the articles published in PubMed/ISI indexed journals. Therefore, improving the quality of all articles, including those published in PubMed/ISI indexed journals is necessary.…”

“…Furthermore, the analyses of subgroups and interactions and sensitivity analyses should be reported to display potential interaction between risk factors, and to estimate the probable range of variation in outcome. However, in our study, similar to other studies ( 3 , 7 , 15 , 17 , 19 ), only few articles reported the analyses.…”

Quality of observational studies in prestigious journals of occupational medicine and health based on Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: a cross-sectional study

“…Thus, it is expected that the quality of reporting of such studies is poorer than that reported in the present survey, although the results of the present study indicate that even this quality is not sufficient. To our knowledge, this study is the first to assess the quality of reporting of observational studies in occupational medicine and health literature; however, similar work has been performed in other disciplines; for example, Hendriksma et al [ 7 ]. in 2016 con-ducted a similar study to evaluate the quality of reporting of observational studies in otorhinolaryngology based on the STROBE statement.…”

Mobile Applications in Otolaryngology: A Systematic Review of the Literature, Apple App Store and the Google Play Store

“…using “The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology” (STROBE) 11 checklist adherence percentage, when applicable, with a higher percentage indicating a better study quality. 12 Among available risk of bias tools, the STROBE checklist was selected in accordance to previous ORL literature, as it is a 23-item document with the aim of strengthening the quality of reporting in observational studies. 12 When inter-rater agreement could not be reached, the first Author (E.M.C.T.)…”