Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration

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 generalizability 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.

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration

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.

Congenital retinal macrovessels: description of three cases and review of the literature

BACKGROUND: Congenital retinal macrovessels are large aberrant branches of retinal arteries or veins that cross the macula. We present three patients with a unilateral congenital retinal macrovessel and we conduct a review of the literature. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A 22-year-old man complaining of chronic headache as well as two other men, 18 and 23 years old, respectively, during a routine ophthalmological examination, were found with a unilateral congenital retinal macrovessel each. A thorough ophthalmological examination was performed, including colour fundus photography in all three patients and fluorescein angiography in two of the patients. We followed them up for five years. THERAPY AND OUTCOME: Investigation revealed a unilateral venous congenital retinal macrovessel in all patients. Clinical findings and visual acuity remained unchanged throughout the entire follow-up period. No complications were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: Congenital retinal macrovessels are rare and they tend to remain stable. Visual acuity is preserved in most cases. Complications occur only occasionally and have been described in the literature. Differential diagnosis from other arteriovenous malformations affecting multiple organs is necessary.

[Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration]

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.

The significant effect of endometriosis on physical, mental and social wellbeing: results from an international cross-sectional survey.

STUDY QUESTION To what extent do the management of endometriosis and the symptoms that remain after treatment affect the quality of life in women with the disease? SUMMARY ANSWER Many women with endometriosis had impaired quality of life and continued to suffer from endometriosis-associated symptoms even though their endometriosis has been managed in tertiary care centres. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY The existing literature indicates that quality of life and work productivity is reduced in women with endometriosis. However, most studies have small sample sizes, are treatment related or examine newly diagnosed patients only. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION A cross-sectional questionnaire-based survey among 931 women with endometriosis treated in 12 tertiary care centres in 10 countries. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Women diagnosed with endometriosis who had at least one contact related to endometriosis-associated symptoms during 2008 with a participating centre were enrolled into the study. The study investigated the effect of endometriosis on education, work and social wellbeing, endometriosis-associated symptoms and health-related quality of life, by using questions obtained from the World Endometriosis Research Foundation (WERF) GSWH instrument (designed and validated for the WERF Global Study on Women's Health) and the Short Form 36 version 2 (SF-36v2). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Of 3216 women invited to participate in the study, 1450 (45%) provided informed consent and out of these, 931 (931/3216 = 29%) returned the questionnaires. Endometriosis had affected work in 51% of the women and affected relationships in 50% of the women at some time during their life. Dysmenorrhoea was reported by 59%, dyspareunia by 56% and chronic pelvic pain by 60% of women. Quality of life was decreased in all eight dimensions of the SF-36v2 compared with norm-based scores from a general US population (all P < 0.01). Multivariate regression analysis showed that number of co-morbidities, chronic pain and dyspareunia had an independent negative effect on both the physical and mental component of the SF-36v2. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION The fact that women were enrolled in tertiary care centres could lead to a possible over-representation of women with moderate-to-severe endometriosis, because the participating centres typically treat more complex and referred cases of endometriosis. The response rate was relatively low. Since there was no Institute Review Board approval to do a non-responder investigation on basic characteristics, some uncertainty remains regarding the representativeness of the investigated population. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS This international multicentre survey represents a large group of women with endometriosis, in all phases of the disease, which increases the generalizability of the data. Women still suffer from frequent symptoms, despite tertiary care management, in particular chronic pain and dyspareunia. As a result their quality of life is significantly decreased. A patient-centred approach with extensive collaboration across disciplines, such as pain specialists, psychologists, sexologists and social workers, may be a valuable strategy to improve the long-term care of women with endometriosis. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) The WERF EndoCost study is funded by the World Endometriosis Research Foundation (WERF) through grants received from Bayer Schering Pharma AG, Takeda Italia Farmaceutici SpA, Pfizer Ltd and the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. The sponsors did not have a role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis and interpretation of the data; and preparation, review or approval of the manuscript. L.H. is the chief executive and T.D. was a board member of WERF at the time of funding. T.D. holds the Merck-Serono Chair in Reproductive Medicine and Surgery, and the Ferring Chair in Reproductive Medicine at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven in Belgium and has served as consultant/research collaborator for Merck-Serono, Schering-Plough, Astellas and Arresto.

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

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.

Time relevance, citation of reporting guidelines, and breadth of literature search in systematic reviews in orthodontics

INTRODUCTION As the importance of systematic review (SR) conclusions relies upon the scientific rigor of methods and the currency of evidence, we aimed to investigate the currency of orthodontic SRs using as proxy the time from the initial search to publication. Additionally, SR information regarding reporting guidelines, registration, and literature searches were recorded when available. MATERIALS AND METHODS A systematic PubMed search was carried out using the Clinical Queries page to identify orthodontic SRs cited between 1 January 2008 and 7 November 2013. Data related to reporting guidelines, review registration, dates of review processing, literature search, and abstract reporting were retrieved and classified by journal type. Survival analysis was used to assess the time to reach predefined manuscript stages for orthodontic and non-orthodontic journals. RESULTS One hundred twenty seven of the originally identified 585 SRs were considered eligible. The median interval from search until publication was 13.2 months (interquartile range: IQR = 9.7 months) irrespective of the journal type. There was evidence (P = 0.05) that SRs published by non-orthodontic journals appeared in PubMed faster than in orthodontic journals (non-orthodontic: median = 6.5 months; IQR = 5.7 months; orthodontic: median = 10.2 months; IQR = 5.6 months) from submission to publication and from acceptance to publication (non-orthodontic: median = 1.5 months; IQR = 2.4 months; orthodontic: median = 6.0 months; IQR = 6.2 months; P < 0.001). More than half of these SRs did not cite adherence to any reporting guidelines, whereas all but five studies were not prospectively registered. Search of unpublished research was undertaken in approximately 21 per cent and 29 per cent of the SRs published in non-orthodontic and orthodontic periodicals, respectively. CONCLUSIONS This study indicates that SR users should be aware that median time for orthodontic SRs from search to publication is 13.2 months. SRs published in non-orthodontic journals are likely to be more current in terms of submission until time to publication and acceptance until time to publication compared with those published in orthodontic journals.