24
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Declaración de la Iniciativa STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology): directrices para la comunicación de estudios observacionales Translated title: The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology [STROBE] statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Gran parte de la investigación biomédica es de tipo observacional, pero la información difundida sobre esas investigaciones es a menudo insuficiente, lo que dificulta la evaluación de sus puntos fuertes y débiles para la generalización de sus conclusiones. En el marco de la iniciativa STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology), se formularon recomendaciones sobre lo que debería contener una notificación precisa de un estudio observacional. Decidimos limitar el alcance de las recomendaciones a tres grandes modalidades de estudio: de cohortes, de casos y controles, y transversales. En septiembre de 2004 organizamos un taller de 2 días con metodólogos, investigadores y editores de revistas para elaborar una lista de verificación de distintos puntos. Esta lista fue revisada posteriormente en varias reuniones del grupo de coordinación y en discusiones mantenidas por correo electrónico con los principales participantes en STROBE, teniendo en cuenta la evidencia empírica y diversas consideraciones metodológicas. El taller y el posterior proceso iterativo de consulta y revisión desembocaron en una lista de verificación de 22 puntos (la declaración STROBE) que guardan relación con el título, el resumen, la introducción y las secciones de métodos, resultados y discusión de los artículos. Dieciocho puntos son comunes a las 3 modalidades de estudio, y 4 se refieren específicamente a los estudios de cohortes, de casos y controles o transversales. Se ha publicado separadamente un documento de explicación y elaboración al que puede accederse libremente en los sitios web de PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine y Epidemiology. Esperamos que la declaración STROBE contribuya a mejorar la calidad de la publicación de los estudios observacionales.

          Translated 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 che-cklist 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 websites 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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 42

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses.

            The Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM) conference was convened to address standards for improving the quality of reporting of meta-analyses of clinical randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The QUOROM group consisted of 30 clinical epidemiologists, clinicians, statisticians, editors, and researchers. In conference, the group was asked to identify items they thought should be included in a checklist of standards. Whenever possible, checklist items were guided by research evidence suggesting that failure to adhere to the item proposed could lead to biased results. A modified Delphi technique was used in assessing candidate items. The conference resulted in the QUOROM statement, a checklist, and a flow diagram. The checklist describes our preferred way to present the abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of a report of a meta-analysis. It is organised into 21 headings and subheadings regarding searches, selection, validity assessment, data abstraction, study characteristics, and quantitative data synthesis, and in the results with "trial flow", study characteristics, and quantitative data synthesis; research documentation was identified for eight of the 18 items. The flow diagram provides information about both the numbers of RCTs identified, included, and excluded and the reasons for exclusion of trials. We hope this report will generate further thought about ways to improve the quality of reports of meta-analyses of RCTs and that interested readers, reviewers, researchers, and editors will use the QUOROM statement and generate ideas for its improvement.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Spurious precision? Meta-analysis of observational studies.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ND
                Role: ND
                Role: ND
                Role: ND
                Role: ND
                Role: ND
                Journal
                gs
                Gaceta Sanitaria
                Gac Sanit
                Ediciones Doyma, S.L. (Barcelona )
                0213-9111
                April 2008
                : 22
                : 2
                : 144-150
                Affiliations
                [1 ] University of Bern Suiza
                [2 ] University of Oxford Reino Unido
                [3 ] University of Bristol Reino Unido
                [4 ] University of London Reino Unido
                [5 ] Nordic Cochrane Centre Dinamarca
                [6 ] Leiden University Hospital Holanda
                Article
                S0213-91112008000200011
                10.1157/13119325
                Product
                Product Information: website
                Categories
                Health Policy & Services

                Public health

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                Similar content 300

                Cited by 30

                Most referenced authors 750