STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology: Molecular Epidemiology STROBE-ME. An extension of the STROBE statement

Advances in laboratory techniques have led to a rapidly increasing use of biomarkers in epidemiological studies. Biomarkers of internal dose, early biological change, susceptibility, and clinical outcomes are used as proxies for investigating the interactions between external and/or endogenous agents and the body components or processes. The need for improved reporting of scientific research led to influential statements of recommendations such as STrengthening Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement. The STROBE initiative established in 2004 aimed to provide guidance on how to report observational research. Its guidelines provide a user-friendly checklist of 22 items to be reported in epidemiological studies, with items specific to the three main study designs: cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies. The present STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology - Molecular Epidemiology (STROBE-ME) initiative builds on the STROBE Statement implementing 9 existing items of STROBE and providing 17 additional items to the 22 items of STROBE checklist. The additions relate to the use of biomarkers in epidemiological studies, concerning collection, handling and storage of biological samples; laboratory methods, validity and reliability of biomarkers; specificities of study design; and ethical considerations. The STROBE-ME recommendations are intended to complement the STROBE recommendations.

Consensus standards for acquisition, measurement, and reporting of intravascular optical coherence tomography studies: a report from the International Working Group for Intravascular Optical Coherence Tomography Standardization and Validation

The purpose of this document is to make the output of the International Working Group for Intravascular Optical Coherence Tomography (IWG-IVOCT) Standardization and Validation available to medical and scientific communities, through a peer-reviewed publication, in the interest of improving the diagnosis and treatment of patients with atherosclerosis, including coronary artery disease.

A multi-level decomposition of variance in somatic symptom reporting in families with adolescent children

OBJECTIVES: This paper examines four different levels of possible variation in symptom reporting: occasion, day, person and family. DESIGN: In order to rule out effects of retrospection, concurrent symptom reporting was assessed prospectively using a computer-assisted self-report method. METHODS: A decomposition of variance in symptom reporting was conducted using diary data from families with adolescent children. We used palmtop computers to assess concurrent somatic complaints from parents and children six times a day for seven consecutive days. In two separate studies, 314 and 254 participants from 96 and 77 families, respectively, participated. A generalized multilevel linear models approach was used to analyze the data. Symptom reports were modelled using a logistic response function, and random effects were allowed at the family, person and day level, with extra-binomial variation allowed for on the occasion level. RESULTS: Substantial variability was observed at the person, day and occasion level but not at the family level. CONCLUSIONS: To explain symptom reporting in normally healthy individuals, situational as well as person characteristics should be taken into account. Family characteristics, however, would not help to clarify symptom reporting in all family members.

A call for uniform reporting standards in studies assessing endovascular treatment for chronic ischaemia of lower limb arteries

Endovascular therapy is a rapidly evolving field for the treatment of patients with peripheral arterial disease, and a magnitude of studies reporting on various modern revascularization concepts have been recently published. Thus, studies assessing the efficacy of endovascular therapy of peripheral arteries do not operate with uniformly defined endpoints, rendering a direct comparison of studies difficult. The purpose of this consensus statement is to highlight differences in the terminology used in the current literature and to propose some standardized criteria that must be considered when reporting results of endovascular revascularization for chronic ischaemia of lower limb arteries.

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.

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.

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.