52
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Quality of Cohort Studies Reporting Post the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement

      brief-report

      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

          The quality of reporting of cohort studies published in the most prestigious scientific medical journals was investigated to indicate to what extent the items in the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist are addressed. Six top scientific medical journals with high impact factor were selected including New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, Lancet, British Medical Journal, Archive of Internal Medicine, and Canadian Medical Association Journal. Ten cohort studies published in 2010 were selected randomly from each journal. The percentage of items in the STROBE checklist that were addressed in each study was investigated. The total percentage of items addressed by these studies was 69.3 (95% confidence interval: 59.6 to 79.0). We concluded that reporting of cohort studies published in the most prestigious scientific medical journals is not clear enough yet. The reporting of other types of observational studies such as case-control and cross-sectional studies particularly those being published in less prestigious journals expected to be much more imprecise.

          Related collections

          Most cited references5

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Book: not found

          Epidemiology

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

            Quality of reporting of observational longitudinal research.

            Observational longitudinal research is particularly useful for assessing etiology and prognosis and for providing evidence for clinical decision making. However, there are no structured reporting requirements for studies of this design to assist authors, editors, and readers. The authors developed and tested a checklist of criteria related to threats to the internal and external validity of observational longitudinal studies. The checklist criteria concerned recruitment, data collection, biases, and data analysis and descriptive issues relevant to study rationale, study population, and generalizability. Two raters independently assessed 49 randomly selected articles describing stroke research published from 1999 to 2003 in six journals: American Journal of Epidemiology, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, Stroke, Annals of Neurology, Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, and American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. On average, 17 of the 33 checklist criteria were reported. Criteria describing the study design were better reported than those related to internal validity. No relation was found between study type (etiologic or prognostic) or word count and quality of reporting. A flow diagram for summarizing participant flow through a study was developed. Editors and authors should consider using a checklist and flow diagram when reporting on observational longitudinal research.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Assessing the quality of research.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Epidemiol Health
                EPIH
                Epidemiology and Health
                Korean Society of Epidemiology
                2092-7193
                2011
                07 June 2011
                : 33
                : e2011005
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Research Center for Health Sciences and Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran.
                [2 ]Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran.
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Jalal Poorolajal, MD, PhD. Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Shahid Fahmideh Ave., Hamadan 65157838695, Iran. Tel: +98-811-8260661, Fax: +98-811-8255301, poorolajal@ 123456umsha.ac.ir
                Article
                10.4178/epih/e2011005
                3110877
                21716598
                825cec3b-677d-4e2e-b2cd-016de0aa25e0
                © 2011, Korean Society of Epidemiology

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 15 March 2011
                : 11 May 2011
                Categories
                Brief Communication

                Public health
                cohort studies,observational studies,strobe statement,reporting
                Public health
                cohort studies, observational studies, strobe statement, reporting

                Comments

                Comment on this article