[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 websites 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.

[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 che-cklist 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 websites 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.

Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias

BACKGROUND: The increased use of meta-analysis in systematic reviews of healthcare interventions has highlighted several types of bias that can arise during the completion of a randomised controlled trial. Study publication bias has been recognised as a potential threat to the validity of meta-analysis and can make the readily available evidence unreliable for decision making. Until recently, outcome reporting bias has received less attention. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We review and summarise the evidence from a series of cohort studies that have assessed study publication bias and outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials. Sixteen studies were eligible of which only two followed the cohort all the way through from protocol approval to information regarding publication of outcomes. Eleven of the studies investigated study publication bias and five investigated outcome reporting bias. Three studies have found that statistically significant outcomes had a higher odds of being fully reported compared to non-significant outcomes (range of odds ratios: 2.2 to 4.7). In comparing trial publications to protocols, we found that 40-62% of studies had at least one primary outcome that was changed, introduced, or omitted. We decided not to undertake meta-analysis due to the differences between studies. CONCLUSIONS: Recent work provides direct empirical evidence for the existence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. There is strong evidence of an association between significant results and publication; studies that report positive or significant results are more likely to be published and outcomes that are statistically significant have higher odds of being fully reported. Publications have been found to be inconsistent with their protocols. Researchers need to be aware of the problems of both types of bias and efforts should be concentrated on improving the reporting of trials.

Functional and anatomical outcomes of vitreoretinal surgery for posterior segment complications after elective cataract surgery

PURPOSE: To assess the outcomes in patients who required 1 or more vitreoretinal interventions for posterior segment complications arising from elective uneventful cataract surgery. SETTING: Tertiary referral center, single-center study. METHODS: A retrospective interventional case series included 56 consecutive patients who were referred for surgical correction of posterior segment complications within 6 months of cataract surgery. The study period was between 1996 and 2003, and the minimum follow-up was 5 months. RESULTS: Posterior segment complications were resolved with a single surgical intervention in 40 cases (71.4%). Within 5 months of primary surgical correction, persisting or newly arising posterior segment complications were noted in 16 cases (28.6%). After a mean of 2.1 +/- 1.4 (SD) additional surgeries, the number of eyes with posterior segment problems decreased to 7 (12.5%) (P = .035). Posterior segment complications requiring more than 1 vitreoretinal intervention included retinal detachment, endophthalmitis, and choroidal hemorrhages. After primary correction surgery, the mean best corrected visual acuity increased from 0.15 +/- 0.24 to 0.37 +/- 0.33 (P = .001) after a single intervention and to 0.39 +/- 0.32 (P>.05) after additional interventions. Although the intraocular pressure (IOP) decreased from 21.8 +/- 16.6 mm Hg to 14.9 +/- 3.4 mm Hg (P = .008), 4 (7.1%) consecutive vascular optic atrophies occurred. A reduction in corneal transparency was observed in 46.4% of patients before primary surgical correction and 12.5% after primary surgical correction (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: In many cases, posterior segment complications arising from cataract surgery could be repaired with favorable functional and anatomical outcomes by a single vitreoretinal intervention. Additional surgery, if requested, provided stabilization of the anatomical and functional outcomes.

[Safety of treatment with tacrolimus ointment for anterior segment inflammatory diseases]

BACKGROUND: The off-label use of topical tacrolimus (Protopic) for inflammatory external eye diseases is gaining popularity. However, there are no reports on the safety profile of this new treatment option. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We treated six patients with different inflammatory eye diseases with topical tacrolimus (Protopic 0.03 %) as off-label use in addition to the conventional anti-inflammatory treatment. Patients were interviewed for side effects and serum drug concentrations were measured under steady state conditions one hour after topical application of tacrolimus ointment. RESULTS: Two patients reported a slight burning sensation immediately after application, in one patient we found a slight worsening of the dry eye problems. No patient abandoned the treatment due to side effects. Serum drug concentrations remained below the analytical threshold in all cases (< 1.5 ng/ml). CONCLUSIONS: Tacrolimus for the topical treatment of anterior segment inflammatory eye diseases is well tolerated without detectable systemic drug resorption.

[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.

When one depends on the other: reporting of interaction in case-control and cohort studies

BACKGROUND: Interaction refers to the situation in which the effect of 1 exposure on an outcome differs across strata of another exposure. We did a survey of epidemiologic studies published in leading journals to examine how interaction is assessed and reported. METHODS: We selected 150 case-control and 75 cohort studies published between May 2001 and May 2007 in leading general medicine, epidemiology, and clinical specialist journals. Two reviewers independently extracted data on study characteristics. RESULTS: Of the 225 studies, 138 (61%) addressed interaction. Among these, 25 (18%) presented no data or only a P value or a statement of statistical significance; 40 (29%) presented stratum-specific effect estimates but no meaningful comparison of these estimates; and 58 (42%) presented stratum-specific estimates and appropriate tests for interaction. Fifteen articles (11%) presented the individual effects of both exposures and also their joint effect or a product term, providing sufficient information to interpret interaction on an additive and multiplicative scale. Reporting was poorest in articles published in clinical specialist articles and most adequate in articles published in general medicine journals, with epidemiology journals in an intermediate position. CONCLUSIONS: A majority of articles reporting cohort and case-control studies address possible interactions between exposures. However, in about half of these, the information provided was unsatisfactory, and only 1 in 10 studies reported data that allowed readers to interpret interaction effects on an additive and multiplicative scale.

Surgical instrumentation for the in vivo determination of lumbar spinal segment stiffness and viscoelasticity

The definition of spinal instability is still controversial. For this reason, it is essential to better understand the difference in biomechanical behaviour between healthy and degenerated human spinal segments in vivo. A novel computer-assisted instrument was developed with the objective to characterize the biomechanical parameters of the spinal segment. Investigation of the viscoelastic properties as well as the dynamic spinal stiffness was performed during a minimally invasive procedure (microdiscectomy) on five patients. Measurements were performed intraoperatively and the protocol consisted of a dynamic part, where spinal stiffness was computed, and a static part, where force relaxation of the segment under constant elongation was studied. The repeatability of the measurement procedure was demonstrated with five replicated tests. The spinal segment tissues were found to have viscoelastic properties. Preliminary tests confirmed a decrease in stiffness after decompression surgery. Patients with non-relaxed muscles showed higher stiffness and relaxation rate compared to patients with relaxed muscles, which can be explained by the contraction and relaxation reflex of muscles under fast and then static elongation. The results show the usefulness of the biomechanical characterization of the human lumbar spinal segment to improve the understanding of the contribution of individual anatomical structures to spinal stability.

STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA)--an extension of the STROBE statement

Making sense of rapidly evolving evidence on genetic associations is crucial to making genuine advances in human genomics and the eventual integration of this information in the practice of medicine and public health. Assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of this evidence, and hence the ability to synthesize it, has been limited by inadequate reporting of results. The STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA) initiative builds on the STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement and provides additions to 12 of the 22 items on the STROBE checklist. The additions concern population stratification, genotyping errors, modelling haplotype variation, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, replication, selection of participants, rationale for choice of genes and variants, treatment effects in studying quantitative traits, statistical methods, relatedness, reporting of descriptive and outcome data and the volume of data issues that are important to consider in genetic association studies. The STREGA recommendations do not prescribe or dictate how a genetic association study should be designed, but seek to enhance the transparency of its reporting, regardless of choices made during design, conduct or analysis.

STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association Studies (STREGA)--an extension of the STROBE statement

Making sense of rapidly evolving evidence on genetic associations is crucial to making genuine advances in human genomics and the eventual integration of this information in the practice of medicine and public health. Assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of this evidence, and hence the ability to synthesize it, has been limited by inadequate reporting of results. The STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA) initiative builds on the STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement and provides additions to 12 of the 22 items on the STROBE checklist. The additions concern population stratification, genotyping errors, modelling haplotype variation, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, replication, selection of participants, rationale for choice of genes and variants, treatment effects in studying quantitative traits, statistical methods, relatedness, reporting of descriptive and outcome data, and the volume of data issues that are important to consider in genetic association studies. The STREGA recommendations do not prescribe or dictate how a genetic association study should be designed but seek to enhance the transparency of its reporting, regardless of choices made during design, conduct, or analysis.