Issues in the reporting of epidemiological studies: a survey of recent practice

Pocock, Stuart J.; Collier, Timothy J.; Dandreo, Kimberley J; Stavola, Bianca De; Goldman, Marlene B.; Kalish, Leslie A.; Kasten, Linda; McCormack, Valerie

doi:10.1136/bmj.38250.571088.55

Cited by 250 publications

(236 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

207

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…4,5 To improve the reporting of observational research, we developed a checklist of items that should be addressed: the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement (Table 1). Items relate to title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles.…”

Section: The Strobe Statementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…4,5 We encourage investigators to report pertinent formal sample size calculations if they were done. In other situations they should indicate the considerations that determined the study size (eg, a fixed available sample, as in the first example above).…”

Section: Explanationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…4 In 42 of 50 articles (84%) exposures were grouped into several ordered categories, but often without any stated rationale for the choices made. Fifteen articles used linear associations to model continuous exposure but only 2 reported checking for linearity.…”

Section: Explanationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…101 Another study found that among 67 articles in which statistical analyses were adjusted for confounders, it was mostly unclear how confounders were chosen. 4 …”

Section: Explanationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…4,104 Subgroup analyses are nevertheless often done. 4 Readers need to know which subgroup analyses were planned in advance, and which arose while analyzing the data. Also, it is important to explain what methods were used to examine whether effects or associations differed across groups (see item 17).…”

Section: Explanationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 (http://www.strobe-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of observational research. (Epidemiology 2007;18: 805-835) R ational health care practices require knowledge about the etiology and pathogenesis, diagnosis, prognosis and treatment of diseases. Randomized trials provide valuable evidence about treatments and other interventions. However, much of clinical or public health knowledge comes from observational research. 1 About nine of ten research papers published in clinical speciality journals describe observational research. 2,3 The STROBE StatementReporting of observational research is often not detailed and clear enough to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the investigation. 4,5 To improve the reporting of observational research, we developed a checklist of items that should be addressed: the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement (Table 1). Items relate to title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. The STROBE Statement has recently been published in several journals. 6 Our aim is to ensure clear presentation of what was planned, done, and found in an observational study. We stress that the recommendations are not prescriptions for setting up or conducting studies, nor do they dictate methodology or mandate a uniform presentation.STROBE provides general reporting recommendations for descriptive observational studies and studies that investigate 805associations between expos...

show abstract

Section: The Strobe Statementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Explanationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Explanationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…101 Another study found that among 67 articles in which statistical analyses were adjusted for confounders, it was mostly unclear how confounders were chosen. 4 …”

Section: Explanationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Explanationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The Reporting of Observational Research Studies in Dermatology Journals

Langan

Schmitt

Coenraads³

et al. 2010

Arch Dermatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Study Selection: Cohort, case-control, and crosssectional studies published as original articles during the period January 2005 through December 2007. Studies were identified with a literature search of PubMed combining the journal title and the term epidemiological studies (free text) and by hand searching all of the issues of each journal to identify relevant articles.Data Extraction: All articles were extracted by 2 reviewers independently using standardized checklists based on the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations. Data Synthesis:The number and proportion of reported STROBE items were analyzed for each article. The proportion of studies with good reporting for each item was also assessed.Results: A total of 138 articles were included and analyzed. Reporting quality was very mixed. Key areas that were infrequently reported included sample size calculations (n=10 [7%]), missing data (n=8 [6%]), losses to follow-up (n=17 [12%]), and statistical methods (n=19 [14%]). Only 13 studies (9%) explained the role of funders in the research. The quality of reporting was similar across study designs for "critical" questions with the exception of reporting of participant details, which was better reported in cohort studies (96%) compared with cross-sectional (80%) and case-control (70%) studies.Conclusions: It is difficult to judge the quality of dermatological research unless it is reported well. This study has identified a clear need to improve the quality of reporting of observational studies in dermatology. We recommend that dermatology journals adopt the STROBE criteria.

show abstract

Contradictions in Highly Cited Clinical Research

2005

JAMA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

it is not uncommon for highly cited studies of clinical interventions and their outcomes to be contradicted by subsequent research. The author noted several possible factors for this finding, including study-to-study variability and publication bias.An additional contributor to the observed discrepancy among study results concerns the meaning of the typical marker of research significance, the P value. The P value is the probability of a finding, assuming that there is in truth no effect; it is not simply the probability that there is no effect. As noted by Browner and Newman, 2 research studies are analogous to diagnostic tests and P values are like falsepositive rates when what we really seek is akin to a positive predictive value.A diagnostic test with high sensitivity and specificity may still be ineffective if disease prevalence is low. Similarly, a small P value can be misleading if the prior probability of an effect is low. For example, application of Bayes' theorem shows that if the prior probability of an effect is 10%, a P value of .05 from a study with 80% power results in a "falsepositive report probability" 3 of 36%: this leads to a far different interpretation of the study findings than the P value alone would suggest.Because much high-profile research is notable for its surprise factor, the prior probabilities of true effect may often be relatively low. We should not then be surprised when subsequent studies provide contradictory results. As noted by Davidoff, 4 one solution to this quandary is to better understand Bayesian approaches to study analysis and interpretation. Until such approaches are rendered comprehensible to the average researcher, 5,6 however, we should at least understand the limitations of the P value. Financial Disclosures: None reported. 1. Ioannidis JPA. Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. JAMA. 2005;294:218-228. 2. Browner WS, Newman TB. Are all significant P values created equal? the analogy between diagnostic tests and clinical research. JAMA. 1987;257:2459-2463. 3. Wacholder S, Chanock S, Garcia-Closas M, et al. Assessing the probability that a positive report is false: an approach for molecular epidemiology studies.

show abstract

Issues in the reporting of epidemiological studies: a survey of recent practice

Abstract: Objectives To review current practice in the analysis and reporting of epidemiological research and to identify limitations.

Cited by 250 publications

References 39 publications

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration

The Reporting of Observational Research Studies in Dermatology Journals

Contradictions in Highly Cited Clinical Research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About