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.

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.

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 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 3 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. Eighteen items are common to all 3 study designs and 4 are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available at http://www.annals.org and on the Web sites of PLoS Medicine and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.

[The nasopalatine duct cyst--epidemiology, diagnosis and therapy]

The nasopalatine duct cyst is the most frequent nonodontogenic cyst of the jaws. The cyst originates from epithelial remanents from the nasopalatine duct. The cells may be activated spontaneously during life, or are eventually stimulated by the irritating action of various agents (infection, etc.). Generally, patients present without clinical signs and symptoms. Therefore, the tentative diagnosis "nasopalatine duct cyst" is often based on a coincidental radiological finding on a routine panoramic view or occlusal radiograph. The definite diagnosis should be based on clinical, radiological and histopathologic findings. The therapy of nasopalatine duct cysts consists of an enucleation of the cystic tissue, only in rare cases a marsupialization needs to be performed. The present review of the literature presents and discusses the epidemiology, etiology, diagnostic work-up, differential diagnostic aspects, histopatholgy, and therapeutic strategies for nasopalatine duct cysts.

Epidemiology of candidemia in Swiss tertiary care hospitals: secular trends, 1991-2000

Candida species are among the most common bloodstream pathogens in the United States, where the emergence of azole-resistant Candida glabrata and Candida krusei are major concerns. Recent comprehensive longitudinal data from Europe are lacking. We conducted a nationwide survey of candidemia during 1991-2000 in 17 university and university-affiliated hospitals representing 79% of all tertiary care hospital beds in Switzerland. The number of transplantations and bloodstream infections increased significantly (P<.001). A total of 1137 episodes of candidemia were observed: Candida species ranked seventh among etiologic agents (2.9% of all bloodstream isolates). The incidence of candidemia was stable over a 10-year period. C. albicans remained the predominant Candida species recovered (66%), followed by C. glabrata (15%). Candida tropicalis emerged (9%), the incidence of Candida parapsilosis decreased (1%), and recovery of C. krusei remained rare (2%). Fluconazole consumption increased significantly (P<.001). Despite increasing high-risk activities, the incidence of candidemia remained unchanged, and no shift to resistant species occurred.

[Oral erythroplakia and erythroleukoplakia: red and red-white dysplastic lesions of the oral mucosa--part 1: epidemiology, etiology, histopathology and differential diagnosis]

Oral erythroplakia (OE) and oral erythroleukoplakia (OEL; synonym: speckled leukoplakia) are working diagnoses for red and red-white lesions of the oral mucosa after exclusion of all other possible diagnoses for lesions with a similar clinical appearance. A good knowledge of oral medicine and possible differential diagnoses of oral mucosal pathologies is mandatory to correctly detect OE and OEL on this exclusion basis. In the present review article in a series of two, epidemiologic data, etiologic factors, possible differential diagnoses, and the histopathologic characteristics of OE and OEL will be presented and discussed regarding the current literature. A thorough histopathologic examination of these epithelial precursor lesions is mandatory to recognise the presence and the severity of epithelial dysplasia, which is a decisive factor for the subsequent treatment planning.

[The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting of observational studies]

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, 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. 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.

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

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, 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. 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.

[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.

Epidemiology of pulmonary hypertension: new data from the Swiss registry

BACKGROUND: since 1999 data from pulmonary hypertension (PH) patients from all PH centres in Switzerland were prospectively collected. We analyse the epidemiological aspects of these data. METHODS: PH was defined as a mean pulmonary artery pressure of >25 mm Hg at rest or >30 mm Hg during exercise. Patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), PH associated with lung diseases, PH due to chronic thrombotic and/or embolic disease (CTEPH), or PH due to miscellaneous disorders were registered. Data from adult patients included between January 1999 and December 2004 were analysed. RESULTS: 250 patients were registered (age 58 +/- 16 years, 104 (41%) males). 152 patients (61%) had PAH, 73 (29%) had CTEPH and 18 (7%) had PH associated with lung disease. Patients <50 years (32%) were more likely to have PAH than patients >50 years (76% vs. 53%, p <0.005). Twenty-four patients (10%) were lost to followup, 58 patients (26%) died and 150 (66%) survived without transplantation or thrombendarterectomy. Survivors differed from patients who died in the baseline six-minute walking distance (400 m [300-459] vs. 273 m [174-415]), the functional impairment (NYHA class III/IV 86% vs. 98%), mixed venous saturation (63% [57-68] vs. 56% [50-61]) and right atrial pressure (7 mm Hg [4-11] vs. 11 mm Hg [4-18]). DISCUSSION: PH is a disease affecting adults of all ages. The management of these patients in specialised centres guarantees a high quality of care. Analysis of the registry data could be an instrument for quality control and might help identify weak points in assessment and treatment of these patients.