STROBE Statement: linee guida per descrivere gli studi osservazionali

Much of 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 generalizability. 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, casecontrol, 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. Eighteen 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.

Multivariable adjustments counteract spectrum and test review bias in accuracy studies

OBJECTIVES: The STAndards for Reporting studies of Diagnostic accuracy (STARD) for investigators and editors and the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) for reviewers and readers offer guidelines for the quality and reporting of test accuracy studies. These guidelines address and propose some solutions to two major threats to validity: spectrum bias and test review bias. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Using a clinical example, we demonstrate that these solutions fail and propose an alternative solution that concomitantly addresses both sources of bias. We also derive formulas that prove the generality of our arguments. RESULTS: A logical extension of our ideas is to extend STARD item 23 by adding a requirement for multivariable statistical adjustment using information collected in QUADAS items 1, 2, and 12 and STARD items 3-5, 11, 15, and 18. CONCLUSION: We recommend reporting not only variation of diagnostic accuracy across subgroups (STARD item 23) but also the effects of the multivariable adjustments on test performance. We also suggest that the QUADAS be supplemented by an item addressing the appropriateness of statistical methods, in particular whether multivariable adjustments have been included in the analysis.

[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.

No surgical innovation without evaluation: the IDEAL recommendations

Surgery and other invasive therapies are complex interventions, the assessment of which is challenged by factors that depend on operator, team, and setting, such as learning curves, quality variations, and perception of equipoise. We propose recommendations for the assessment of surgery based on a five-stage description of the surgical development process. We also encourage the widespread use of prospective databases and registries. Reports of new techniques should be registered as a professional duty, anonymously if necessary when outcomes are adverse. Case series studies should be replaced by prospective development studies for early technical modifications and by prospective research databases for later pre-trial evaluation. Protocols for these studies should be registered publicly. Statistical process control techniques can be useful in both early and late assessment. Randomised trials should be used whenever possible to investigate efficacy, but adequate pre-trial data are essential to allow power calculations, clarify the definition and indications of the intervention, and develop quality measures. Difficulties in doing randomised clinical trials should be addressed by measures to evaluate learning curves and alleviate equipoise problems. Alternative prospective designs, such as interrupted time series studies, should be used when randomised trials are not feasible. Established procedures should be monitored with prospective databases to analyse outcome variations and to identify late and rare events. Achievement of improved design, conduct, and reporting of surgical research will need concerted action by editors, funders of health care and research, regulatory bodies, and professional societies.

Life expectancies of South African adults starting antiretroviral treatment: collaborative analysis of cohort studies

BACKGROUND Few estimates exist of the life expectancy of HIV-positive adults receiving antiretroviral treatment (ART) in low- and middle-income countries. We aimed to estimate the life expectancy of patients starting ART in South Africa and compare it with that of HIV-negative adults. METHODS AND FINDINGS Data were collected from six South African ART cohorts. Analysis was restricted to 37,740 HIV-positive adults starting ART for the first time. Estimates of mortality were obtained by linking patient records to the national population register. Relative survival models were used to estimate the excess mortality attributable to HIV by age, for different baseline CD4 categories and different durations. Non-HIV mortality was estimated using a South African demographic model. The average life expectancy of men starting ART varied between 27.6 y (95% CI: 25.2-30.2) at age 20 y and 10.1 y (95% CI: 9.3-10.8) at age 60 y, while estimates for women at the same ages were substantially higher, at 36.8 y (95% CI: 34.0-39.7) and 14.4 y (95% CI: 13.3-15.3), respectively. The life expectancy of a 20-y-old woman was 43.1 y (95% CI: 40.1-46.0) if her baseline CD4 count was ≥ 200 cells/µl, compared to 29.5 y (95% CI: 26.2-33.0) if her baseline CD4 count was <50 cells/µl. Life expectancies of patients with baseline CD4 counts ≥ 200 cells/µl were between 70% and 86% of those in HIV-negative adults of the same age and sex, and life expectancies were increased by 15%-20% in patients who had survived 2 y after starting ART. However, the analysis was limited by a lack of mortality data at longer durations. CONCLUSIONS South African HIV-positive adults can have a near-normal life expectancy, provided that they start ART before their CD4 count drops below 200 cells/µl. These findings demonstrate that the near-normal life expectancies of HIV-positive individuals receiving ART in high-income countries can apply to low- and middle-income countries as well. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

Molecular diagnostics for gonorrhoea: implications for antimicrobial resistance and the threat of untreatable gonorrhoea

This Essay from Nicola Low and colleagues discusses the importance of the nucleic acid amplification tests for rapid detection of N. gonorrhoeae and its resistance determinants, as well as the importance of ensuring their rational use, as priorities for controlling both gonorrhoea and antimicrobial resistance. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

When to start antiretroviral therapy in children aged 2-5 years: a collaborative causal modelling analysis of cohort studies from southern Africa

BACKGROUND There is limited evidence on the optimal timing of antiretroviral therapy (ART) initiation in children 2-5 y of age. We conducted a causal modelling analysis using the International Epidemiologic Databases to Evaluate AIDS-Southern Africa (IeDEA-SA) collaborative dataset to determine the difference in mortality when starting ART in children aged 2-5 y immediately (irrespective of CD4 criteria), as recommended in the World Health Organization (WHO) 2013 guidelines, compared to deferring to lower CD4 thresholds, for example, the WHO 2010 recommended threshold of CD4 count <750 cells/mm(3) or CD4 percentage (CD4%) <25%. METHODS AND FINDINGS ART-naïve children enrolling in HIV care at IeDEA-SA sites who were between 24 and 59 mo of age at first visit and with ≥1 visit prior to ART initiation and ≥1 follow-up visit were included. We estimated mortality for ART initiation at different CD4 thresholds for up to 3 y using g-computation, adjusting for measured time-dependent confounding of CD4 percent, CD4 count, and weight-for-age z-score. Confidence intervals were constructed using bootstrapping. The median (first; third quartile) age at first visit of 2,934 children (51% male) included in the analysis was 3.3 y (2.6; 4.1), with a median (first; third quartile) CD4 count of 592 cells/mm(3) (356; 895) and median (first; third quartile) CD4% of 16% (10%; 23%). The estimated cumulative mortality after 3 y for ART initiation at different CD4 thresholds ranged from 3.4% (95% CI: 2.1-6.5) (no ART) to 2.1% (95% CI: 1.3%-3.5%) (ART irrespective of CD4 value). Estimated mortality was overall higher when initiating ART at lower CD4 values or not at all. There was no mortality difference between starting ART immediately, irrespective of CD4 value, and ART initiation at the WHO 2010 recommended threshold of CD4 count <750 cells/mm(3) or CD4% <25%, with mortality estimates of 2.1% (95% CI: 1.3%-3.5%) and 2.2% (95% CI: 1.4%-3.5%) after 3 y, respectively. The analysis was limited by loss to follow-up and the unavailability of WHO staging data. CONCLUSIONS The results indicate no mortality difference for up to 3 y between ART initiation irrespective of CD4 value and ART initiation at a threshold of CD4 count <750 cells/mm(3) or CD4% <25%, but there are overall higher point estimates for mortality when ART is initiated at lower CD4 values. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

Updated method guidelines for cochrane musculoskeletal group systematic reviews and metaanalyses.

The Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group (CMSG), one of 53 groups of the not-for-profit, international Cochrane Collaboration, prepares, maintains, and disseminates systematic reviews of treatments for musculoskeletal diseases. It is important that authors conducting CMSG reviews and the readers of our reviews be aware of and use updated, state-of-the-art systematic review methodology. One hundred sixty reviews have been published. Previous method guidelines for systematic reviews of interventions in the musculoskeletal field published in 2006 have been substantially updated to incorporate methodological advances that are mandatory or highly desirable in Cochrane reviews and knowledge translation advances. The methodological advances include new guidance on searching, new risk-of-bias assessment, grading the quality of the evidence, the new Summary of Findings table, and comparative effectiveness using network metaanalysis. Method guidelines specific to musculoskeletal disorders are provided by CMSG editors for various aspects of undertaking a systematic review. These method guidelines will help improve the quality of reporting and ensure high standards of conduct as well as consistency across CMSG reviews.

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

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.

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.

Assessing the reporting quality in abstracts of randomized controlled trials in leading journals of oral implantology.

AIM Abstracts of randomized clinical trials are extremely important as trial appraisal is often based on the information included here. The objective of this study was to assess the quality of the reporting of RCT abstracts in journals of Oral Implantology. MATERIAL AND METHODS Six leading Implantology journals were screened for RCTs between years 2008 and 2012. A 21-item modified CONSORT for abstracts checklist was used to examine the completeness of abstract reporting. Descriptive statistics and linear regression modeling were employed for data analysis. RESULTS One hundred and sixty three RCT abstracts were included in this study. The majority of the RCTs were published in the Clinical Oral Implants Research (42.9%). The mean overall reporting quality score was 58.6% (95% CI: 57.6-59.7). The highest score was noted in the European Journal of Oral Implantology (63.8%; 95% CI: 61.8-65.8). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that abstract quality score was related to publication journal and number of research centers involved. Most abstracts adequately reported interventions (89.0%), objectives (77.9%) and conclusions (74.8%) while failed to report randomization procedures, allocation concealment, effect estimate, confidence intervals, and funding. Registration of RCTs was not reported in any of the abstracts. CONCLUSIONS The reporting quality in abstracts of RCTs published in Oral Implantology journals needs to be improved. Editors and authors should be encouraged to endorse the CONSORT for abstracts guidelines in order to achieve optimal quality in abstract reporting.

Recommendations for sex/gender neuroimaging research: Key principles and implications for research design, analysis and interpretation

Neuroimaging (NI) technologies are having increasing impact in the study of complex cognitive and social processes. In this emerging field of social cognitive neuroscience, a central goal should be to increase the understanding of the interaction between the neurobiology of the individual and the environment in which humans develop and function. The study of sex/gender is often a focus for NI research, and may be motivated by a desire to better understand general developmental principles, mental health problems that show female-male disparities, and gendered differences in society. In order to ensure the maximum possible contribution of NI research to these goals, we draw attention to four key principles—overlap, mosaicism, contingency and entanglement—that have emerged from sex/gender research and that should inform NI research design, analysis and interpretation. We discuss the implications of these principles in the form of constructive guidelines and suggestions for researchers, editors, reviewers and science communicators.