Cargando…

Uses and misuses of the STROBE statement: bibliographic study

OBJECTIVES: Appropriate reporting is central to the application of findings from research to clinical practice. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations consist of a checklist of 22 items that provide guidance on the reporting of cohort, case–...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: da Costa, Bruno R, Cevallos, Myriam, Altman, Douglas G, Rutjes, Anne W S, Egger, Matthias
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Group 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3191404/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22021739
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2010-000048
_version_ 1782213650012962816
author da Costa, Bruno R
Cevallos, Myriam
Altman, Douglas G
Rutjes, Anne W S
Egger, Matthias
author_facet da Costa, Bruno R
Cevallos, Myriam
Altman, Douglas G
Rutjes, Anne W S
Egger, Matthias
author_sort da Costa, Bruno R
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: Appropriate reporting is central to the application of findings from research to clinical practice. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations consist of a checklist of 22 items that provide guidance on the reporting of cohort, case–control and cross-sectional studies, in order to facilitate critical appraisal and interpretation of results. STROBE was published in October 2007 in several journals including The Lancet, BMJ, Annals of Internal Medicine and PLoS Medicine. Within the framework of the revision of the STROBE recommendations, the authors examined the context and circumstances in which the STROBE statement was used in the past. DESIGN: The authors searched the Web of Science database in August 2010 for articles which cited STROBE and examined a random sample of 100 articles using a standardised, piloted data extraction form. The use of STROBE in observational studies and systematic reviews (including meta-analyses) was classified as appropriate or inappropriate. The use of STROBE to guide the reporting of observational studies was considered appropriate. Inappropriate uses included the use of STROBE as a tool to assess the methodological quality of studies or as a guideline on how to design and conduct studies. RESULTS: The authors identified 640 articles that cited STROBE. In the random sample of 100 articles, about half were observational studies (32%) or systematic reviews (19%). Comments, editorials and letters accounted for 15%, methodological articles for 8%, and recommendations and narrative reviews for 26% of articles. Of the 32 observational studies, 26 (81%) made appropriate use of STROBE, and three uses (10%) were considered inappropriate. Among 19 systematic reviews, 10 (53%) used STROBE inappropriately as a tool to assess study quality. CONCLUSIONS: The STROBE reporting recommendations are frequently used inappropriately in systematic reviews and meta-analyses as an instrument to assess the methodological quality of observational studies.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3191404
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher BMJ Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-31914042011-10-13 Uses and misuses of the STROBE statement: bibliographic study da Costa, Bruno R Cevallos, Myriam Altman, Douglas G Rutjes, Anne W S Egger, Matthias BMJ Open Epidemiology OBJECTIVES: Appropriate reporting is central to the application of findings from research to clinical practice. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations consist of a checklist of 22 items that provide guidance on the reporting of cohort, case–control and cross-sectional studies, in order to facilitate critical appraisal and interpretation of results. STROBE was published in October 2007 in several journals including The Lancet, BMJ, Annals of Internal Medicine and PLoS Medicine. Within the framework of the revision of the STROBE recommendations, the authors examined the context and circumstances in which the STROBE statement was used in the past. DESIGN: The authors searched the Web of Science database in August 2010 for articles which cited STROBE and examined a random sample of 100 articles using a standardised, piloted data extraction form. The use of STROBE in observational studies and systematic reviews (including meta-analyses) was classified as appropriate or inappropriate. The use of STROBE to guide the reporting of observational studies was considered appropriate. Inappropriate uses included the use of STROBE as a tool to assess the methodological quality of studies or as a guideline on how to design and conduct studies. RESULTS: The authors identified 640 articles that cited STROBE. In the random sample of 100 articles, about half were observational studies (32%) or systematic reviews (19%). Comments, editorials and letters accounted for 15%, methodological articles for 8%, and recommendations and narrative reviews for 26% of articles. Of the 32 observational studies, 26 (81%) made appropriate use of STROBE, and three uses (10%) were considered inappropriate. Among 19 systematic reviews, 10 (53%) used STROBE inappropriately as a tool to assess study quality. CONCLUSIONS: The STROBE reporting recommendations are frequently used inappropriately in systematic reviews and meta-analyses as an instrument to assess the methodological quality of observational studies. BMJ Group 2011-02-26 /pmc/articles/PMC3191404/ /pubmed/22021739 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2010-000048 Text en © 2011, Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non commercial and is otherwise in compliance with the license. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/legalcode.
spellingShingle Epidemiology
da Costa, Bruno R
Cevallos, Myriam
Altman, Douglas G
Rutjes, Anne W S
Egger, Matthias
Uses and misuses of the STROBE statement: bibliographic study
title Uses and misuses of the STROBE statement: bibliographic study
title_full Uses and misuses of the STROBE statement: bibliographic study
title_fullStr Uses and misuses of the STROBE statement: bibliographic study
title_full_unstemmed Uses and misuses of the STROBE statement: bibliographic study
title_short Uses and misuses of the STROBE statement: bibliographic study
title_sort uses and misuses of the strobe statement: bibliographic study
topic Epidemiology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3191404/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22021739
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2010-000048
work_keys_str_mv AT dacostabrunor usesandmisusesofthestrobestatementbibliographicstudy
AT cevallosmyriam usesandmisusesofthestrobestatementbibliographicstudy
AT altmandouglasg usesandmisusesofthestrobestatementbibliographicstudy
AT rutjesannews usesandmisusesofthestrobestatementbibliographicstudy
AT eggermatthias usesandmisusesofthestrobestatementbibliographicstudy