cohort study case-control study cross-sectional study benefit transparency credibility randomized controlled trial: RCT critical assessment

Similar documents
Many questions in medical research are investigated in

Reporting guidelines

Improving reporting for observational studies: STROBE statement

From protocol to publication: ensuring quality in the reporting of continence research Workshop 20 Monday, August 23rd 2010, 14:00 17:00

CONSORT 2010 checklist of information to include when reporting a randomised trial*

CONSORT extension. CONSORT for Non-pharmacologic interventions. Isabelle Boutron

The QUOROM Statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of systematic reviews

Research Trends in Post Graduate Medical Students, Pune

Uses and misuses of the STROBE statement: bibliographic study

Korea-China Editorial Workshop

ARTICLE. Editorial Policies of Pediatric Journals. of publication bias and selective reporting of study results 1 and continued

What Do Case-Control Studies Estimate? Survey of Methods and Assumptions in Published Case-Control Research

Systematic Reviews. Simon Gates 8 March 2007

Guidelines for Reporting Non-Randomised Studies

The SPIRIT Initiative: Defining standard protocol items

To evaluate a single epidemiological article we need to know and discuss the methods used in the underlying study.

Uses and misuses of the STROBE statement: bibliographic study

PROTOCOL: Reporting Guidelines Systematic Review 1. Dr. David Moher

Garbage in - garbage out? Impact of poor reporting on the development of systematic reviews

CHECK-LISTS AND Tools DR F. R E Z A E I DR E. G H A D E R I K U R D I S TA N U N I V E R S I T Y O F M E D I C A L S C I E N C E S

Methods and Processes of Developing the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology - Veterinary (STROBE-Vet) Statement

EVIDENCE-BASED DERMATOLOGY: STUDY

Rational health care practices require knowledge about the

Blinded by PRISMA: Are Systematic Reviewers Focusing on PRISMA and Ignoring Other Guidelines?

Dissemination experiences from CONSORT and other reporting guidelines

CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF THE SPINE LITERATURE: THE FUNDAMENTALS FINAL PROGRAMME

CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF THE SPINE LITERATURE: THE FUNDAMENTALS 20 June 2018 FINAL PROGRAMME

Using Number Needed to Treat to Interpret Treatment Effect

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

PRELIMINARY PROGRAMME

Meta-Analyses: Considerations for Probiotics & Prebiotics Studies

Empirical evidence on sources of bias in randomised controlled trials: methods of and results from the BRANDO study

Web appendix (published as supplied by the authors)

Assessing the risk of outcome reporting bias in systematic reviews

Cite this article as: BMJ, doi: /bmj (published 18 July 2006)

Protocol: Is the total score of the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression associated with suicidality? A systematic review of observational studies

Systematic reviewers neglect bias that results from trials stopped early for benefit

Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study

Towards Complete and Accurate Reporting of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy: The STARD Initiative

The influence of CONSORT on the quality of reports of RCTs: An updated review. Thanks to MRC (UK), and CIHR (Canada) for funding support

Quality of Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 1

Mitigating Reporting Bias in Observational Studies Using Covariate Balancing Methods

Editorial: An Author s Checklist for Measure Development and Validation Manuscripts

THE REPORTING OF HARM IS AS

Rational health care practices require knowledge about. Academia and Clinic

Surveying clinical surveys

A protocol for a systematic review on the impact of unpublished studies and studies published in the gray literature in meta-analyses

Statistical methods for assessing the inuence of study characteristics on treatment eects in meta-epidemiological research

Comorbidome, Pattern, and Impact of Asthma-COPD Overlap Syndrome in Real Life

Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative

Statistical probability was first discussed in the

Reviewer No. 1 checklist for application of: inclusion of Nifurtimox + eflornithine in the WHO Essential Medicines List

[Study Protocol] Version 1 ( Nov. 2012)

Introduction to systematic reviews/metaanalysis

Papers. Validity of indirect comparison for estimating efficacy of competing interventions: empirical evidence from published meta-analyses.

The importance of good reporting of medical research. Doug Altman. Centre for Statistics in Medicine University of Oxford

Choice of axis, tests for funnel plot asymmetry, and methods to adjust for publication bias

Strategies for handling missing data in randomised trials

Predictors of publication: characteristics of submitted manuscripts associated with acceptance at major biomedical journals

Making Cross-Country Comparisons on Health Systems and Health Outcomes - What are the Criteria for Study Designs?

Observed Differences in Diagnostic Test Accuracy between Patient Subgroups: Is It Real or Due to Reference Standard Misclassification?

Maxing out on quality appraisal of your research: Avoiding common pitfalls. Policy influenced by study quality

Cochrane Bone, Joint & Muscle Trauma Group How To Write A Protocol

Quality of Reporting of Modern Randomized Controlled Trials in Medical Oncology: A Systematic Review

Original Article Reporting Experiments in Homeopathic Basic Research Description of the Checklist Development

What is meta-analysis?

Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis in Aquatic therapy

Research Quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials in polycystic ovary syndrome Anna Partsinevelou 1 and Elias Zintzaras* 1,2

Should individuals with missing outcomes be included in the analysis of a randomised trial?

Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials in Hodgkin Lymphoma in Biomedical Journals

Details on the procedure and devices used for assessment and calculation of

Placebo-controlled trials of Chinese herbal medicine and conventional medicine comparative study

Evaluating the results of a Systematic Review/Meta- Analysis

Downloaded from:

Well-designed, properly conducted, and clearly reported randomized controlled

CONSORT 2010 checklist of information to include when reporting a randomised trial*

Further data analysis topics

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta analyses: the PRISMA Statement

Trials and Tribulations of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

research methods & reporting

Secular Changes in the Quality of Published Randomized Clinical Trials in Rheumatology

What is indirect comparison?

How to write a scientific paper Writing the methods section

Performance of the Trim and Fill Method in Adjusting for the Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis of Continuous Data

Disclosures. An Introduction to Meta Analysis. Biography, SL Norris 2/20/2012

Meeting the research information needs of patients and clinicians more effectively Iain Chalmers Editor, James Lind Library

METHODOLOGICAL INDEX FOR NON-RANDOMIZED STUDIES (MINORS): DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF A NEW INSTRUMENT

RESEARCH. Risk of bias versus quality assessment of randomised controlled trials: cross sectional study

Introduction to diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis. Yemisi Takwoingi October 2015

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology for respondent-driven sampling studies: STROBE-RDS statement

Meta-analysis of safety thoughts from CIOMS X

SEVERAL AUTHORS AND ORGANIzations

Consensus Statement on Ethnopharmacological Field Studies ConSEPTFS (Draft version)

Controlled Trials. Spyros Kitsiou, PhD

PROTOCOL. Francesco Brigo, Luigi Giuseppe Bongiovanni

Reporting on methods of subgroup analysis in clinical trials: a survey of four scientific journals

Misleading funnel plot for detection of bias in meta-analysis

N of 1 trials: planning, conduct, and evaluation

Impact of STARD on reporting quality of diagnostic accuracy studies in a top Indian Medical Journal: A retrospective survey

How do systematic reviews incorporate risk of bias assessments into the synthesis of evidence? A methodological study

Transcription:

The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology STROBE statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine ISPM, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland E von Elm MD, Prof M Egger MD ; Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford UK Prof DG Altman DSc ; Department of Social Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK M Egger MD ; London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, University of London, London, UK Prof SJ Pocock PhD ; Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark PC Go/tzsche MD ; and Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Hospital, Leiden, Netherlands Prof JP Vandenbroucke MD 1 cohort study case-control study cross-sectional study benefit harm 2 randomized controlled trial: RCT adverse effect 3 transparency credibility strength weakness critical assessment 4, 5 Erik von Elm, Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine ISPM, University of Bern, Finkenhubelweg 11, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland. strobe@ispm.unibe.ch 202

confounding variables rationale 6 case control identify 7 longitudinal study 4917 35 eligibility criteria specify 8 9 10, 11 CONSORT Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials 1996 5 12 CONSORT 13 RCT 14, 15 RCT 16 17 STROBE The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Aims and use of the STROBE statement STROBE STROBE STROBE Explanation and Elaboration article 18 20 Annals of Internal Medicine www. annals.orgplos Medicine www.plosmedicine. orgepidemiology www.epidem.com website STROBE Development of the STROBE statement 2004STROBE www.strobe-statement. org empirical study STROBE scope 2004 9 2 practitioner Annals of Internal Medicine BMJ Bulletin of the World Health Organization International Journal of Epidemiology JAMA Preventive Medicine The Lancet 203

23STROBE 10 website 3 STROBE 3 website website Explanation and Elaboration paper 18 20 1 28 3 Explanation and Elaboration paper 30 email STROBE components STROBE 22 1 2 3 4 12 13 17 18 21 22 18 4 6 12 14 15 exposed unexposed STROBE website Implications and limitations STROBE CONSORT 18 20 18 20 exploratory 204

no title and abstract 1 a b introduction background / rationale 2 objective 3 methods study design 4 early setting 5 exposure participant 6 a eligibility criteria sources a casecontrol a b matched study exposed unexposed bmatched study variable 7 predictor potential confounder effect modifier data source / 8 comparability bias 9 study size 10 quantitative variable statistical method 11 a grouping 12 a b interaction c missing data dloss to follow-up d d sampling strategy esensitivity analysis 205

result participant 13 a eligible b c descriptive data Outcome data 14 a b c 15 summary measure main result 16 a unadjusted 95 bcontinuous variable category boundary c relevant relative risk absolute risk other analysis 17 discussion key result 18 limitation 19 interpretation 20 multiplicity generalisability 21 external validity other information funding 22 funder original study STROBE Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology STROBE : Explanation and elaboration STROBE Annals of Internal Medicine website www.annals.org Epidemiology website www.epidem.org PLoS Medicine website www.plosmedicine.com STROBE website www.strobe-statement.org 206

STROBE case-crossover study ecological study STROBE STROBE CONSORT 21 24 STROBE - gene-disease association study STROBE Extension to Genetic Association studies STREGA initiative 25 STROBE STROBE rigid source of fundingfunder 22 appendix RCT CONSORT 26 STROBE 27 STROBE 28 Explanation and Elaboration paper confirm STROBEadopt confounding bias generalisability over-enthusiastic 29 subitem representative STROBE change re-publication STROBE STROBE website www.strobe-statement.org 207

STROBE Douglas G Altman, Maria Blettner, Paolo Boffetta, Hermann Brenner, Geneviève Chêne, Cyrus Cooper, George Davey-Smith, Erik von Elm, Matthias Egger, France Gagnon, Peter C Go/tzsche, Philip Greenland, Sander Greenland, Claire Infante-Rivard, John Ioannidis, Astrid James, Giselle Jones, Bruno Ledergerber, Julian Little, Margaret May, David Moher, Hooman Momen, Alfredo Morabia, Hal Morgenstern, Cynthia Mulrow, Fred Paccaud, Stuart Pocock, Charles Poole, Drummond Rennie, Martin Röösli, Dietrich Rothenbacher, Kenneth Rothman, Caroline Sabin, Willi Sauerbrei, Lale Say, James J. Schlesselman, Jonathan Sterne, Holly Syddall, Jan P Vandenbroucke, Ian White, Susan Wieland, Hywel Williams, Guang Yong Zou. European Science Foundation ESF Medical Research Council Health Services Research Collaboration National Health Services Research & Development Methodology Programme STROBE Gerd Antes Kay Dickersin Shah Ebrahim Richard Lilford Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine ISPM, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland; Department of Social Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK; Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark; Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Oxford, UK. 6 1 Glasziou P, Vandenbroucke JP, Chalmers I. Assessing the quality of research. BMJ. 2004; 328: 39 41. 2 Black N. Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care. BMJ. 1996; 312: 1215 8. 3 Papanikolaou PN, Christidi GD, Ioannidis JP. Comparison of evidence on harms of medical interventions in randomized and nonrandomized studies. CMAJ. 2006; 174: 635 41. 4 Juni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ. 2001; 323: 42 6. 5 Egger M, Schneider M, Davey Smith G. Spurious precision? Metaanalysis of observational studies. BMJ. 1998; 316: 140 4. 6 Pocock SJ, Collier TJ, Dandreo KJ, de Stavola BL, Goldman MB, Kalish LA, et al. Issues in the reporting of epidemiological studies: a survey of recent practice. BMJ. 2004; 329: 883. 7 Lee W, Bindman J, Ford T, Glozier N, Moran P, Stewart R, et al. Bias in psychiatric case-control studies: literature survey. Br J Psychiatry. 2007; 190: 204 9. 8 Tooth L, Ware R, Bain C, Purdie DM, Dobson A. Quality of reporting of observational longitudinal research. Am J Epidemiol. 2005; 161: 280 8. 9 Bogardus ST, Jr., Concato J, Feinstein AR. Clinical epidemiological quality in molecular genetic research: the need for methodological standards. JAMA. 1999; 281: 1919 26. 10 Anonymous. Guidelines for documentation of epidemiologic studies. Epidemiology Work Group of the Interagency Regulatory Liaison Group. Am J Epidemiol. 1981; 114: 609 13. 11 Rennie D. CONSORT revised-improving the reporting of randomized trials. JAMA. 2001; 285: 2006 7. 12 Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet. 2001; 357: 1191 4. p.60 7. 13 Moher D, Altman DG, Schulz KF, Elbourne DR. Opportunities and challenges for improving the quality of reporting clinical research: CONSORT and beyond. CMAJ. 2004; 171: 349 50. 14 Plint AC, Moher D, Morrison A, Schulz K, Altman DG, Hill C, et al. Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review. Med J Aust. 2006; 185: 263 7. 15 Egger M, Juni P, Bartlett C. Value of flow diagrams in reports of randomized controlled trials. JAMA. 2001; 285: 1996 9. 16 Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet. 1999; 354: 1896 900. p.212 9. 17 Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, et al. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD Initiative. Ann Intern Med. 2003; 138: 40 4.p.172 8. 18 Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Go/tzsche PC, Mulrow CD, Pocock SJ, et al., for the STROBE Initiative. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology STROBE : explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2007; 147: W-163 W-194. 19 Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Go/tzsche PC, Mulrow CD, Pocock SJ, et al., for the STROBE Initiative. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology STROBE : explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2007; 4: 297. 20 Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Go/tzsche PC, Mulrow CD, Pocock SJ, et al., for the STROBE Initiative. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology STROBE : explanation and elaboration. Epidemiology. 2007. Forthcoming. 21 Ioannidis JP, Evans SJ, Go/tzsche PC, O Neill RT, Altman DG, Schulz K, et al. Better reporting of harms in randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. Ann Intern Med. 2004; 141: 781 8.p.68 104. 22 Campbell MK, Elbourne DR, Altman DG. CONSORT statement: extension to cluster randomised trials. BMJ. 2004; 328: 702 8. p.105 17. 23 Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Altman DG, Pocock SJ, Evans SJ. Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. JAMA. 2006; 295: 1152 60.p.135 46. 24 Gagnier JJ, Boon H, Rochon P, Moher D, Barnes J, Bombardier C. Reporting randomized, controlled trials of herbal interventions: an 208

elaborated CONSORT statement. Ann Intern Med. 2006; 144: 364 7.p.156 63. 25 Ioannidis JP, Gwinn M, Little J, Higgins JP, Bernstein JL, Boffetta P, et al. A road map for efficient and reliable human genome epidemiology. Nat Genet. 2006; 38: 3 5. 26 Ormerod AD. CONSORT your submissions: an update for authors. Br J Dermatol. 2001; 145: 378 9. 27 Schriger DL. Suggestions for improving the reporting of clinical research: the role of narrative. Ann Emerg Med. 2005; 45: 437 43. 28 Sanderson S, Tatt ID, Higgins JP. Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography. Int J Epidemiol. 2007 Apr 30; Epub ahead of print Int J Epidemiol. 2007; 36: 666 76 29 Bartlett C, Sterne J, Egger M. What is newsworthy? Longitudinal study of the reporting of medical research in two British newspapers. BMJ. 2002; 325: 81 4. http://www.strobe-statement.org/ Erik von Elm, Douglas G Altman, Matthias Egger, Stuart J Pocock, Peter C Go/tzsche, Jan P Vandenbroucke for the STROBE initiative. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology STROBE statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies STROBE 209