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.

Strengthening the reporting of genetic association studies (STREGA): an extension of the strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (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 (STREGA) studies 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, modeling 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.

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 into 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, modeling 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 issues of data volume 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, modeling 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, modeling 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.

Cohort study of trials submitted to ethics committee identified discrepant reporting of outcomes in publications

OBJECTIVES To identify factors associated with discrepant outcome reporting in randomized drug trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING Cohort study of protocols submitted to a Swiss ethics committee 1988-1998: 227 protocols and amendments were compared with 333 matching articles published during 1990-2008. Discrepant reporting was defined as addition, omission, or reclassification of outcomes. RESULTS Overall, 870 of 2,966 unique outcomes were reported discrepantly (29.3%). Among protocol-defined primary outcomes, 6.9% were not reported (19 of 274), whereas 10.4% of reported outcomes (30 of 288) were not defined in the protocol. Corresponding percentages for secondary outcomes were 19.0% (284 of 1,495) and 14.1% (334 of 2,375). Discrepant reporting was more likely if P values were <0.05 compared with P ≥ 0.05 [adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 1.38; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.07, 1.78], more likely for efficacy compared with harm outcomes (aOR: 2.99; 95% CI: 2.08, 4.30) and more likely for composite than for single outcomes (aOR: 1.48; 95% CI: 1.00, 2.20). Cardiology (aOR: 2.34; 95% CI: 1.44, 3.79) and infectious diseases (aOR: 1.77; 95% CI: 1.01, 3.13) had more discrepancies compared with all specialties combined. CONCLUSION Discrepant reporting was associated with statistical significance of results, type of outcome, and specialty area. Trial protocols should be made freely available, and the publications should describe and justify any changes made to protocol-defined outcomes.

Reporting quality of systematic review abstracts in leading oral implantology journals

OBJECTIVES Abstracts of systematic reviews are of critical importance, as consumers of research often do not access the full text. This study aimed to assess the reporting quality of systematic review (SR) abstracts in leading oral implantology journals. METHODS Six specialty journals were screened for SRs between 2008 and 2012. A 16-item checklist, based on the PRISMA statement, was used to examine the completeness of abstract reporting. RESULTS Ninety-three SR abstracts were included in this study. The majority were published in Clinical Oral Implants Research (43%). The mean overall reporting quality score was 72.5% (95% CI: 70.8-74.2). Most abstracts were structured (97.9%), adequately reporting objectives (97.9%) and conclusions (93.6%). Conversely, inadequate reporting of methods of the study, background (79.6%), appraisal (65.6%), and data synthesis (65.6%) were observed. Registration of reviews was not reported in any of the included abstracts. Multivariate analysis revealed no difference in reporting quality with respect to continent, number of authors, or meta-analysis conduct. CONCLUSIONS The results of this study suggest that the reporting quality of systematic review abstracts in implantology journals requires further improvement. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE Better reporting of SR abstracts is particularly important in ensuring the reliability of research findings, ultimately promoting the practice of evidence-based dentistry. Optimal reporting of SR abstracts should be encouraged, preferably by endorsing the PRISMA for abstracts guidelines.

Reporting completeness of abstracts of systematic reviews published in leading dental specialty journals

The aim of this study was to investigate the reporting completeness of systematic review (SR) abstracts in leading dental specialty journals. Electronic and supplementary hand searching were undertaken to identify SRs published in seven dental specialty journals and in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Abstract reporting completeness was evaluated using a checklist derived from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (prisma) guidelines. Descriptive statistics followed by univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted. Two-hundred and eighteen SR abstracts were identified. Reporting of interventions (94%), objectives (96%), data sources (81%), eligibility criteria (77%), and conclusions (97%) was adequate in the majority of reviews. However, inadequate reporting of participants (18%), results (42%), effect size (14%), level of significance (60%), and trial registration (100%) was commonplace. The mean overall reporting score was 79.1% (95% CI, 77.6-80.6). Only journal of publication was a significant predictor of overall reporting, with inferior results for all journals relative to Cochrane reviews, with scores ranging from -4.3% (95% CI, -8.74 to 0.08) to -35.6% (95% CI, -42.0 to -24.3) for the International Journal of Prosthodontics and the British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, respectively. Improved reporting of dental SR abstracts is needed and should be encouraged, as these abstracts may underpin influential clinical decisions.

Reporting quality of abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in dental specialty journals

OBJECTIVES A widespread assessment of the reporting of RCT abstracts published in dental journals is lacking. Our aim was to investigate the quality of reporting of abstracts published in leading dental specialty journals using, as a guide, the CONSORT for abstracts checklist. METHODS Electronic and supplementary hand searching were undertaken to identify RCTs published in seven dental specialty journals. The quality of abstract reporting was evaluated using a modified checklist based on the CONSORT for abstracts checklist. Descriptive statistics followed by univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted. RESULTS 228 RCT abstracts were identified. Reporting of interventions, objectives and conclusions within abstracts were adequate. Inadequately reported items included: title, participants, outcomes, random number generation, numbers randomized and effect size estimate. Randomization restrictions, allocation concealment, blinding, numbers analyzed, confidence intervals, intention-to-treat analysis, harms, registration and funding were rarely described. CONCLUSIONS The mean overall reporting quality score was suboptimal at 62.5% (95% CI: 61.9, 63.0). Significantly better abstract reporting was noted in certain specialty journals and in multicenter trials.

Cluster randomized clinical trials in orthodontics: design, analysis and reporting issues

Cluster randomized trials (CRTs) use as the unit of randomization clusters, which are usually defined as a collection of individuals sharing some common characteristics. Common examples of clusters include entire dental practices, hospitals, schools, school classes, villages, and towns. Additionally, several measurements (repeated measurements) taken on the same individual at different time points are also considered to be clusters. In dentistry, CRTs are applicable as patients may be treated as clusters containing several individual teeth. CRTs require certain methodological procedures during sample calculation, randomization, data analysis, and reporting, which are often ignored in dental research publications. In general, due to similarity of the observations within clusters, each individual within a cluster provides less information compared with an individual in a non-clustered trial. Therefore, clustered designs require larger sample sizes compared with non-clustered randomized designs, and special statistical analyses that account for the fact that observations within clusters are correlated. It is the purpose of this article to highlight with relevant examples the important methodological characteristics of cluster randomized designs as they may be applied in orthodontics and to explain the problems that may arise if clustered observations are erroneously treated and analysed as independent (non-clustered).

Cancer, meta-analysis and reporting biases: the case of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents.

Reporting and publication bias is a well-known problem in meta-analysis and healthcare research. In 2002 we conducted a meta-analysis on the effects of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) on overall survival in cancer patients, which suggested some evidence for improved survival in patients receiving ESAs compared with controls. However, a meta-analysis of individual patient data conducted several years later showed the opposite of our first meta-analysis, that is, evidence for increased on-study mortality and reduced overall survival in cancer patients receiving ESAs. We aimed to determine whether the results of our first meta-analysis could have been affected by publication and reporting biases and, if so, whether timely access to clinical study reports and individual patient data could have prevented this. We conducted a hypothetical meta-analysis for overall survival including all studies and study data that could have been available in 2002, at the time when we conducted our first meta-analysis. Compared with our original meta-analysis, which suggested an overall survival benefit for cancer patients receiving ESAs [hazard ratio (HR) 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67‒0.99], our hypothetical meta-analysis based on the results of all studies conducted at the time of the first analysis did not show evidence for a beneficial effect of ESAs on overall survival (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.83‒1.12). Thus we have to conclude that our first meta-analysis showed misleading overall survival benefits due to publication and reporting biases, which could have been prevented by timely access to clinical study reports and individual patient data. Unrestricted access to clinical study protocols including amendments, clinical study reports and individual patient data is needed to ensure timely detection of both beneficial and harmful effects of healthcare interventions.

Current practice in neuropsychological outcome reporting after aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage

BACKGROUND Neuropsychological deficits (NPD) are common in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage (aSAH). NPD are one of the major limiting factors for patients with an otherwise acceptable prognosis for sustained quality of life. There are only a few studies reporting outcome after aSAH, which used a standardized neuropsychological test battery as a primary or secondary outcome measure. Aim of this study was to determine the current practice of reporting NPD following aSAH in clinical studies. METHODS A MEDLINE analysis was performed using the search term "subarachnoid haemorrhage outcome". The latest 1,000 articles were screened. We recorded study design, number of patients, and the presence of neuropsychological outcome report. Additionally, the time of testing after aSAH, the neuropsychological tests administered, as well as the percentage of patients with NPD were analyzed. RESULTS A total of 324 publications between 2009 and 2012 were selected for further review. Of those, 21 studies (6.5%) reported neuropsychological outcome, in 2,001 of 346,666 patients (0.6%). The assessment of NPD differed broadly using both subjective and objective cognitive evaluation, and a large variety of tests were used. CONCLUSION Neuropsychological outcome is underreported, and there is great variety in assessment in currently published clinical articles on aSAH. Prospective randomized trials treating aSAH may benefit from implementing more comprehensive and standardized neuropsychological outcome measures. This approach might identify otherwise unnoticed treatment effects in future interventional studies of aSAH patients.