Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies

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 generalizability. 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 two-day workshop, in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers and journal editors to draft a checklist 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. Eighteen 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 web sites 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.

[1]  N. Black.  Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care , 1996, BMJ.

[2]  G. Smith,et al.  Meta-analysis Spurious precision? Meta-analysis of observational studies , 1998, BMJ.

[3]  I. Olkin,et al.  Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement , 1999, The Lancet.

[4]  A R Feinstein,et al.  Clinical epidemiological quality in molecular genetic research: the need for methodological standards. , 1999, JAMA.

[5]  Douglas G Altman,et al.  Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. , 2001, BMJ.

[6]  D. Rennie.  CONSORT revised--improving the reporting of randomized trials. , 2001, JAMA.

[7]  A. Ormerod.  CONSORT your submissions: an update for authors , 2001, The British journal of dermatology.

[8]  M Egger,et al.  Value of flow diagrams in reports of randomized controlled trials. , 2001, JAMA.

[9]  J. Sterne,et al.  What is newsworthy? Longitudinal study of the reporting of medical research in two British newspapers , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[10]  Douglas G. Altman,et al.  The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials , 2001, The Lancet.

[11]  V. McCormack,et al.  Issues in the reporting of epidemiological studies: a survey of recent practice , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[12]  Paul Glasziou,et al.  Assessing the quality of research , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[13]  D. Altman,et al.  CONSORT statement: extension to cluster randomised trials , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[14]  D. Moher,et al.  Opportunities and challenges for improving the quality of reporting clinical research: CONSORT and beyond , 2004, Canadian Medical Association Journal.

[15]  David Moher,et al.  Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. , 2004, Family practice.

[16]  David L Schriger,et al.  Suggestions for improving the reporting of clinical research: the role of narrative. , 2005, Annals of emergency medicine.

[17]  Peter C Gøtzsche,et al.  [Better reporting of harms in randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement]. , 2005, Ugeskrift for laeger.

[18]  A. Dobson,et al.  Quality of reporting of observational longitudinal research. , 2005, American journal of epidemiology.

[19]  John P.A. Ioannidis,et al.  Comparison of evidence on harms of medical interventions in randomized and nonrandomized studies , 2006, Canadian Medical Association Journal.

[20]  D. Moher,et al.  Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review , 2006, The Medical journal of Australia.

[21]  Paolo Vineis,et al.  A road map for efficient and reliable human genome epidemiology , 2006, Nature Genetics.

[22]  Douglas G Altman,et al.  Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. , 2006, JAMA.

[23]  David Moher,et al.  Reporting Randomized, Controlled Trials of Herbal Interventions: An Elaborated CONSORT Statement , 2006, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[24]  S. Pocock,et al.  Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration , 2007, Annals of Internal Medicine [serial online].

[25]  J. Higgins,et al.  Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography. , 2007, International journal of epidemiology.

[26]  M. Hotopf,et al.  Bias in psychiatric case–control studies , 2007, British Journal of Psychiatry.