Results of our search for articles which cited STROBE are presented narratively. In case of disagreements, the final decision was made by the senior epidemiologist (ME). Whenever the data extractor (BRdC) was in doubt about the classification of an article, he discussed it with other authors until a decision was reached. Categories for ‘reason of citation’ were defined during the piloting of the data-extraction form, and additional categories were defined during data extraction as necessary. A single reviewer (BRdC) then conducted data extraction on a randomly selected sample of 100 articles for the following items: verbatim text of sentence(s) which included STROBE citation reason for citation STROBE article cited type of article that cited STROBE (observational research systematic review or meta-analysis comment, editorial or letter to the editor methodological article or recommendations or narrative review) and background of researchers. We collected the following information for STROBE publications identified through our initial search: journal in which STROBE was published, language of publication and number of citations which STROBE received per year.įor the data extraction from articles which cited STROBE, a data-extraction form was developed by the authors and piloted by two reviewers (BRdC and MC) on a sample of 40 studies which were not part of the randomly selected articles. Our results were presented and discussed during the August 2010 STROBE group meeting, when the group met to discuss a possible revision of the STROBE recommendations in light of the group's experience, anecdotal reports, feedback from STROBE users and new evidence. We considered the use of STROBE other than in relation to its original purpose as a reporting guideline for observational studies. In the present study, we examined in which circumstances and context STROBE has been cited by the researchers (how, where and why), and the background of researchers who cited STROBE. The purpose of the STROBE Statement ‘is to ensure clear presentation of what was planned, done, and found in an observational study’ and the authors of STROBE clearly stress that ‘the recommendations are not prescriptions for setting up or conducting studies, nor do they dictate methodology or mandate a uniform presentation.’ 9 Notwithstanding the clear statement of the purpose of STROBE by its authors, some journal editors are concerned that the STROBE recommendations may be inappropriately used as an assessment tool to judge study quality or that researchers may use STROBE as a guideline to set up or conduct observational studies. To date, the STROBE Statement is endorsed by over 100 journals as well as by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. The STROBE recommendations are accompanied by an explanation and elaboration document (E&E) which explains in detail the rationale of each item and provides examples of transparent reporting from published articles. STROBE was published in October 2007 simultaneously in several journals including leading biomedical journals such as The Lancet, BMJ, Annals of Internal Medicine and PLoS Medicine. The initiative was established in 2004 and subsequently developed in several meetings. 3–7 The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement was developed in a collaborative effort of epidemiologists, methodologists, statisticians, researchers and journal editors to improve the reporting of observational studies, including cohort, case–control and cross-sectional studies. The positive effect of reporting guidelines on the quality of reporting has been documented in several reviews. To help improve the reporting of key items, reporting guidelines have been developed for various types of research design. Given the human and financial resources needed to conduct clinical studies, it is clear that inadequate reporting has also important ethical and moral implications. It is common for systematic reviewers or meta-analysts to exclude otherwise eligible studies owing to incomplete reporting. 1 Inadequate reporting may also be a problem for the synthesis of evidence. For instance, clinicians are often faced with reports of studies which do not provide enough detail of interventions for them to be implemented in clinical practice. Inappropriate reporting makes the sound application of study findings into clinical practice difficult, if not impossible. Appropriate reporting concerns the clear and complete presentation of what was planned, carried out and found in a particular study.
0 kommentar(er)
