Uses and misuses of the STROBE statement: Bibliographic study

239Citations
Citations of this article
307Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objectives: Appropriate reporting is central to the application of findings from research to clinical practice. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations consist of a checklist of 22 items that provide guidance on the reporting of cohort, caseecontrol and cross-sectional studies, in order to facilitate critical appraisal and interpretation of results. STROBE was published in October 2007 in several journals including The Lancet, BMJ, Annals of Internal Medicine and PLoS Medicine. Within the framework of the revision of the STROBE recommendations, the authors examined the context and circumstances in which the STROBE statement was used in the past. Design: The authors searched the Web of Science database in August 2010 for articles which cited STROBE and examined a random sample of 100 articles using a standardised, piloted data extraction form. The use of STROBE in observational studies and systematic reviews (including meta-analyses) was classified as appropriate or inappropriate. The use of STROBE to guide the reporting of observational studies was considered appropriate. Inappropriate uses included the use of STROBE as a tool to assess the methodological quality of studies or as a guideline on how to design and conduct studies. Results: The authors identified 640 articles that cited STROBE. In the random sample of 100 articles, about half were observational studies (32%) or systematic reviews (19%). Comments, editorials and letters accounted for 15%, methodological articles for 8%, and recommendations and narrative reviews for 26% of articles. Of the 32 observational studies, 26 (81%) made appropriate use of STROBE, and three uses (10%) were considered inappropriate. Among 19 systematic reviews, 10 (53%) used STROBE inappropriately as a tool to assess study quality. Conclusions: The STROBE reporting recommendations are frequently used inappropriately in systematic reviews and meta-analyses as an instrument to assess the methodological quality of observational studies.

References Powered by Scopus

CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials.

4603Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

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

2405Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: A systematic review and annotated bibliography

1262Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Using Mendelian Randomization: The STROBE-MR Statement

1798Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology using mendelian randomisation (STROBE-MR): Explanation and elaboration

813Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology—Nutritional Epidemiology (STROBE-nut): An Extension of the STROBE Statement

323Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Da Costa, B. R., Cevallos, M., Altman, D. G., Rutjes, A. W. S., & Egger, M. (2011). Uses and misuses of the STROBE statement: Bibliographic study. BMJ Open, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2010-000048

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 119

59%

Researcher 51

25%

Professor / Associate Prof. 22

11%

Lecturer / Post doc 11

5%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 100

56%

Nursing and Health Professions 40

22%

Psychology 26

15%

Social Sciences 12

7%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Mentions
Blog Mentions: 1

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free