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 the STrenghtening 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.

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 interactions between external and / or endogenous agents and body components or processes. The need for improved reporting of scientific research led to influential statements of recommendations such as the 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 nine 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.

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 interactions between external and/or endogenous agents and body components or processes. The need for improved reporting of scientific research led to influential statements of recommendations such as the 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 nine 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.

Meta-analysis and dose-response metaregression: circulating insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) and mortality

Context: IGF-I plays a central role in metabolism and growth regulation. High IGF-I levels are associated with increased cancer risk and low IGF-I levels with increased risk for cardiovascular disease. Objective: Our objective was to determine the relationship between circulating IGF-I levels and mortality in the general population using random-effects meta-analysis and dose-response metaregression. Data Sources: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from 1985 to September 2010 to identify relevant studies. Study Selection: Population-based cohort studies and (nested) case-control studies reporting on the relation between circulating IGF-I and mortality were assessed for eligibility. Data Extraction: Data extraction was performed by two investigators independently, using a standardized data extraction sheet. Data Synthesis: Twelve studies, with 14,906 participants, were included. Overall, risk of bias was limited. Mortality in subjects with low or high IGF-I levels was compared with mid-centile reference categories. All-cause mortality was increased in subjects with low as well as high IGF-I, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.27 (95% CI = 1.08–1.49) and HR of 1.18 (95% CI = 1.04–1.34), respectively. Dose-response metaregression showed a U-shaped relation of IGF-I and all-cause mortality (P = 0.003). The predicted HR for the increase in mortality comparing the 10th IGF-I with the 50th percentile was 1.56 (95% CI = 1.31–1.86); the predicted HR comparing the 90th with the 50th percentile was 1.29 (95% CI = 1.06–1.58). A U-shaped relationship was present for both cancer mortality and cardiovascular mortality. Conclusions: Both low and high IGF-I concentrations are associated with increased mortality in the general population.

Reporting of noninferiority trials was incomplete in trial registries

Objective To examine the registration of noninferiority trials, with a focus on the reporting of study design and noninferiority margins. Study Design and Setting Cross-sectional study of registry records of noninferiority trials published from 2005 to 2009 and records of noninferiority trials in the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) or ClinicalTrials.gov trial registries. The main outcome was the proportion of records that reported the noninferiority design and margin. Results We analyzed 87 registry records of published noninferiority trials and 149 registry records describing noninferiority trials. Thirty-five (40%) of 87 records from published trials described the trial as a noninferiority trial; only two (2%) reported the noninferiority margin. Reporting of the noninferiority design was more frequent in the ISRCTN registry (13 of 18 records, 72%) compared with ClinicalTrials.gov (22 of 69 records, 32%; P = 0.002). Among the 149 records identified in the registries, 13 (9%) reported the noninferiority margin. Only one of the industry-sponsored trial compared with 11 of the publicly funded trials reported the margin (P = 0.001). Conclusion Most registry records of noninferiority trials do not mention the noninferiority design and do not include the noninferiority margin. The registration of noninferiority trials is unsatisfactory and must be improved.

Impact of random and systematic recall errors and selection bias in case--control studies on mobile phone use and brain tumors in adolescents (CEFALO study)

Whether the use of mobile phones is a risk factor for brain tumors in adolescents is currently being studied. Case--control studies investigating this possible relationship are prone to recall error and selection bias. We assessed the potential impact of random and systematic recall error and selection bias on odds ratios (ORs) by performing simulations based on real data from an ongoing case--control study of mobile phones and brain tumor risk in children and adolescents (CEFALO study). Simulations were conducted for two mobile phone exposure categories: regular and heavy use. Our choice of levels of recall error was guided by a validation study that compared objective network operator data with the self-reported amount of mobile phone use in CEFALO. In our validation study, cases overestimated their number of calls by 9% on average and controls by 34%. Cases also overestimated their duration of calls by 52% on average and controls by 163%. The participation rates in CEFALO were 83% for cases and 71% for controls. In a variety of scenarios, the combined impact of recall error and selection bias on the estimated ORs was complex. These simulations are useful for the interpretation of previous case-control studies on brain tumor and mobile phone use in adults as well as for the interpretation of future studies on adolescents.

Quality of reporting of clinical studies to assess and compare performance of implant-supported restorations

The objective of this analysis was to assess and compare the 5- and 10-year survival of different types of tooth-supported and implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) and single crowns (SCs), and to describe the incidence of biological and technical complications with emphasis on quality of reporting.

Reporting Experiments in Homeopathic Basic Research—Description of the Checklist Development

The objective of this study was to develop a criteria catalogue serving as a guideline for authors to improve quality of reporting experiments in basic research in homeopathy. A Delphi Process was initiated including three rounds of adjusting and phrasing plus two consensus conferences. European researchers who published experimental work within the last 5 years were involved. A checklist for authors provide a catalogue with 23 criteria. The “Introduction” should focus on underlying hypotheses, the homeopathic principle investigated and state if experiments are exploratory or confirmatory. “Materials and methods” should comprise information on object of investigation, experimental setup, parameters, intervention and statistical methods. A more detailed description on the homeopathic substances, for example, manufacture, dilution method, starting point of dilution is required. A further result of the Delphi process is to raise scientists' awareness of reporting blinding, allocation, replication, quality control and system performance controls. The part “Results” should provide the exact number of treated units per setting which were included in each analysis and state missing samples and drop outs. Results presented in tables and figures are as important as appropriate measures of effect size, uncertainty and probability. “Discussion” in a report should depict more than a general interpretation of results in the context of current evidence but also limitations and an appraisal of aptitude for the chosen experimental model. Authors of homeopathic basic research publications are encouraged to apply our checklist when preparing their manuscripts. Feedback is encouraged on applicability, strength and limitations of the list to enable future revisions.

The GABRIEL Advanced Surveys: study design, participation and evaluation of bias

Exposure to farming environments has been shown to protect substantially against asthma and atopic disease across Europe and in other parts of the world. The GABRIEL Advanced Surveys (GABRIELA) were conducted to determine factors in farming environments which are fundamental to protecting against asthma and atopic disease. The GABRIEL Advanced Surveys have a multi-phase stratified design. In a first-screening phase, a comprehensive population-based survey was conducted to assess the prevalence of exposure to farming environments and of asthma and atopic diseases (n = 103,219). The second phase was designed to ascertain detailed exposure to farming environments and to collect biomaterial and environmental samples in a stratified random sample of phase 1 participants (n = 15,255). A third phase was carried out in a further stratified sample only in Bavaria, southern Germany, aiming at in-depth respiratory disease and exposure assessment including extensive environmental sampling (n = 895). Participation rates in phase 1 were around 60% but only about half of the participating study population consented to further study modules in phase 2. We found that consenting behaviour was related to familial allergies, high parental education, wheeze, doctor diagnosed asthma and rhinoconjunctivitis, and to a lesser extent to exposure to farming environments. The association of exposure to farm environments with asthma or rhinoconjunctivitis was not biased by participation or consenting behaviour. The GABRIEL Advanced Surveys are one of the largest studies to shed light on the protective 'farm effect' on asthma and atopic disease. Bias with regard to the main study question was able to be ruled out by representativeness and high participation rates in phases 2 and 3. The GABRIEL Advanced Surveys have created extensive collections of questionnaire data, biomaterial and environmental samples promising new insights into this area of research.

Reporting of consistency of blood pressure control in randomized controlled trials of antihypertensive drugs: a systematic review of 1372 trial reports

Hypertension is a powerful treatable risk factor for stroke. Reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of antihypertensive drugs rightly concentrate on clinical outcomes, but control of blood pressure (BP) during follow-up is also important, particularly given that inconsistent control is associated with a high risk of stroke and that antihypertensive drug classes differ in this regard.