Scinovex
article Open AccessTop 1% cited

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

PLoS Medicine · 2007 · Vol. 4(10) · pp. e297–e297
Jan P. VandenbrouckeErik von ElmDouglas G. AltmanPeter C GøtzscheCynthia D. MulrowStuart PocockCharles PooleJames J. SchlesselmanMatthias Eggerfor the STROBE Initiative

Abstract

Much medical research is observational. The reporting of observational studies is often of insufficient quality. Poor reporting hampers the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a study and the generalisability of its results. Taking into account empirical evidence and theoretical considerations, a group of methodologists, researchers, and editors developed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations to improve the quality of reporting of observational studies. The STROBE Statement consists of a checklist of 22 items, which relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies and four are specific to each of the three study designs. The STROBE Statement provides guidance to authors about how to improve the reporting of observational studies and facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of studies by reviewers, journal editors and readers. This explanatory and elaboration document is intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the STROBE Statement. The meaning and rationale for each checklist item are presented. For each item, one or several published examples and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature are provided. Examples of useful flow diagrams are also included. The STROBE Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.strobe-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of observational research.

Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeReliability and Agreement in MeasurementStrengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiologyObservational studyChecklistCritical appraisalStatement (logic)Consolidated Standards of Reporting TrialsQuality (philosophy)MedicineMeaning (existential)Medical education

MeSH terms

Cross-Sectional StudiesPublishingCohort StudiesEpidemiologic Research DesignCase-Control StudiesGuidelines as TopicObservation

Funding

  • University of Bern
  • European Science Foundation
  • University of Bristol
  • Medical Research Council
  • European Social Fund
Citations
8,236
FWCI
65.89
field-weighted impact
References
264
Percentile
100%
vs. same field & year
Citations per year
References
Analysis of Incomplete Multivariate Data
Technometrics · 2000 · 5,644 citations
Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2007 · 950 citations
Sick individuals and sick populations
International Journal of Epidemiology · 2001 · 3,680 citations
Statistics and Causal Inference
Journal of the American Statistical Association · 1986 · 5,042 citations
REporting recommendations for tumour MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK)
British Journal of Cancer · 2005 · 1,372 citations
Dangers of Using "Optimal" Cutpoints in the Evaluation of Prognostic Factors
JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 1994 · 1,124 citations
Use and misuse of population attributable fractions.
American Journal of Public Health · 1998 · 1,685 citations
Citation Network

How this paper connects to the literature. Drag to explore, click any node to open that paper.