Clinical Guidelines and Standards Guidelines by Issuing Body

The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies

von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, STROBE Initiative

Published October 16, 2007 PLoS Medicine, 4(10), e296
DOI 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296 PMID 17941714 PMC PMC2020495

RRM Academy Synopsis

STROBE is a 22-item checklist for reporting observational studies

STROBE is a 22-item checklist for reporting observational studies. Methodologists, researchers and journal editors developed it through a 2004 workshop and later consultation. Eighteen out of 22 items suit cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies alike. The authors hope it improves reporting quality.

Key Findings

  • The STROBE Statement has 22 items. They span the title and abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion, and funding is item 22.
  • Eighteen of the 22 items suit all three designs. Items 6, 12, 14 and 15 come in versions tailored to cohort, case-control or cross-sectional studies.
  • In September 2004 a 2-day workshop in Bristol, UK, gathered 23 people: editors from The Lancet, JAMA, BMJ and other journals, plus epidemiologists, methodologists and statisticians.
  • Afterward the draft went through 3 published revisions, the coordinating group met on eight occasions, and more than 30 people gave feedback.
  • The authors point to a stroke-research survey of longitudinal studies where 17 of 49 articles (35%) gave no eligibility criteria.

Interpretation

STROBE is a reporting guideline built through workshop discussion and consultation. The group drew on earlier recommendations and the empirical and methodological work it reviewed. The checklist concerns how studies are written up and prescribes no study design. The authors distinguish it from instruments that rate study quality. Clear reporting lets readers weigh a study's strengths and weaknesses. The authors note they did not undertake a full systematic review for each item. The findings support continued refinement and wider adoption of reporting guidance across observational research.

RRM Context

The authors note that observational studies are more likely to indicate what is achieved in daily medical practice. Cohort studies, which STROBE includes, are one design used in RRM outcome research. A cohort report that follows the checklist shows its eligibility criteria, methods and results.

Abstract

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, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. 18 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.

Topics

By this author

Related research

Clinical Guidelines and Standards › Guidelines by Issuing Body › Specialty and Consensus Panels · Research Methods › Scholarly Communication › Reporting Standards
Erik von Elm, Douglas G Altman, Matthias Egger, Stuart J Pocock, Peter C Gøtzsche, Jan P Vandenbroucke
E Elm, Doug Altman, D Altman, M Egger, S Pocock, Pete Gøtzsche, P Gøtzsche, J Vandenbroucke
PMID 17941714 17941714 DOI 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296 von Elm et al. 2007, von Elm 2007