BMJ  2007;335:806-808 (20 October), doi:10.1136/bmj.39335.541782.AD

Analysis

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

¹ Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Finkenhubelweg 11, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland, ² Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford , ³ London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, University of London, London, ⁴ Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark , ⁵ Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Hospital, Leiden, Netherlands

Poor reporting of research hampers assessment and makes it less useful. An international group of methodologists, researchers, and journal editors sets out guidelines to improve reports of observational studies

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

Summary 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 generalisability. 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 2-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, . . . [Full text of this article]

Aims and use of STROBE statement

Development of STROBE statement

STROBE components

Implications and limitations

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

Related Articles

Minerva
BMJ 2007 335: 1102. [Full Text] [PDF]

Reporting of observational studies

Peter M Rothwell and Meena Bhatia
BMJ 2007 335: 783-784. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Issues in the reporting of epidemiological studies: a survey of recent practice

Stuart J Pocock, Timothy J Collier, Kimberley J Dandreo, Bianca L de Stavola, Marlene B Goldman, Leslie A Kalish, Linda E Kasten, and Valerie A McCormack
BMJ 2004 329: 883. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

CONSORT statement: extension to cluster randomised trials

Marion K Campbell, Diana R Elbourne, and Douglas G Altman
BMJ 2004 328: 702-708. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Assessing the quality of research

Paul Glasziou, Jan Vandenbroucke, and Iain Chalmers
BMJ 2004 328: 39-41. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

What is newsworthy? Longitudinal study of the reporting of medical research in two British newspapers

Christopher Bartlett, Jonathan Sterne, and Matthias Egger
BMJ 2002 325: 81-84. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials

Peter Jüni, Douglas G Altman, and Matthias Egger
BMJ 2001 323: 42-46. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Meta-analysis Spurious precision? Meta-analysis of observational studies

Matthias Egger, Martin Schneider, and George Davey Smith
BMJ 1998 316: 140-144. [Extract] [Full Text]

Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care

Nick Black
BMJ 1996 312: 1215-1218. [Extract] [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Fewtrell, M. S, Kennedy, K., Singhal, A., Martin, R. M, Ness, A., Hadders-Algra, M., Koletzko, B., Lucas, A. (2008). How much loss to follow-up is acceptable in long-term randomised trials and prospective studies?. Arch. Dis. Child. 93: 458-461 [Full text]  
• Sellers, T. A. (2008). Improving Completeness and Quality of Epidemiologic Study Publications. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 17: 1024-1025 [Full text]  
• Armstrong, R., Waters, E., Moore, L., Riggs, E., Cuervo, L. G., Lumbiganon, P., Hawe, P. (2008). Improving the reporting of public health intervention research: advancing TREND and CONSORT. J Public Health (Oxf) 30: 103-109 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Lloyd, G. (2007). More than high standards needed. BMJ 335: 900-900 [Full text]  
• Rothwell, P. M, Bhatia, M. (2007). Reporting of observational studies. BMJ 335: 783-784 [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Observational generation of robust outcome evidence

Richard Harding, et al.
bmj.com, 14 Nov 2007 [Full text]