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.

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.

Clinical research projects at a German medical faculty: follow-up from ethical approval to publication and citation by others

BACKGROUND: Only data of published study results are available to the scientific community for further use such as informing future research and synthesis of available evidence. If study results are reported selectively, reporting bias and distortion of summarised estimates of effect or harm of treatments can occur. The publication and citation of results of clinical research conducted in Germany was studied. METHODS: The protocols of clinical research projects submitted to the research ethics committee of the University of Freiburg (Germany) in 2000 were analysed. Published full articles in several databases were searched and investigators contacted. Data on study and publication characteristics were extracted from protocols and corresponding publications. RESULTS: 299 study protocols were included. The most frequent study design was randomised controlled trial (141; 47%), followed by uncontrolled studies (61; 20%), laboratory studies (30; 10%) and non-randomised studies (29; 10%). 182 (61%) were multicentre studies including 97 (53%) international collaborations. 152 of 299 (51%) had commercial (co-)funding and 46 (15%) non-commercial funding. 109 of the 225 completed protocols corresponded to at least one full publication (total 210 articles); the publication rate was 48%. 168 of 210 identified publications (80%) were cited in articles indexed in the ISI Web of Science. The median was 11 citations per publication (range 0-1151). CONCLUSIONS: Results of German clinical research projects conducted are largely underreported. Barriers to successful publication need to be identified and appropriate measures taken. Close monitoring of projects until publication and adequate support provided to investigators may help remedy the prevailing underreporting of research.

Strobe-Statement: Wie berichtet man eine Beobachtungsstudie?

Eine internationale Gruppe schlägt eine Checkliste mit 22 Punkten vor, die von Studiendesign und Methoden bis zum Umgang mit quantitativen Variablen reicht.

STROBE Statement: linee guida per descrivere gli studi osservazionali

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, casecontrol, 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.

An Experience-Driven Pedagogy for the Instruction of Software Testing in Computer Science

In the realm of computer programming, the experience of writing a program is used to reinforce concepts and evaluate ability. This research uses three case studies to evaluate the introduction of testing through Kolb's Experiential Learning Model (ELM). We then analyze the impact of those testing experiences to determine methods for improving future courses. The first testing experience that students encounter are unit test reports in their early courses. This course demonstrates that automating and improving feedback can provide more ELM iterations. The JUnit Generation (JUG) tool also provided a positive experience for the instructor by reducing the overall workload. Later, undergraduate and graduate students have the opportunity to work together in a multi-role Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) course. The interactions use usability analysis techniques with graduate students as usability experts and undergraduate students as design engineers. Students get experience testing the user experience of their product prototypes using methods varying from heuristic analysis to user testing. From this course, we learned the importance of the instructors role in the ELM. As more roles were added to the HCI course, a desire arose to provide more complete, quality assured software. This inspired the addition of unit testing experiences to the course. However, we learned that significant preparations must be made to apply the ELM when students are resistant. The research presented through these courses was driven by the recognition of a need for testing in a Computer Science curriculum. Our understanding of the ELM suggests the need for student experience when being introduced to testing concepts. We learned that experiential learning, when appropriately implemented, can provide benefits to the Computer Science classroom. When examined together, these course-based research projects provided insight into building strong testing practices into a curriculum.

MITEP: REFLECTIVE JOURNEY

This research looks at the use of the Interactive Student Notebook (ISN) in the math classroom and the impact on student achievement as part of the MiTEP program. A reflective critical analysis of the MiTEP program discusses impact on teacher pedagogy, leadership, and connections to people and resources. The purpose of the study stemmed from the lack of student retention, poor organizational skills, and the students’ inability to demonstrate college readiness skills such as how to study, completing homework, and thinking independently. Motivation also stemmed from teacher frustration. The research was conducted at Linden Grove Middle School in Kalamazoo Michigan in a strategic math class. Twenty-two sixth graders, thirty-two seventh graders, and forty eighth graders were part of the study.Students were given the Strategic Math Inventory (SMI) test in week 1 of the class and again at the end of a 12 week marking period. Students participated in an attitude survey to record their feelings about the use of the ISN in the strategic math classroom. The data compared the control group (the previous year’s [2012-2013] growth data) to the experimental group, the current year’s (2013-2014) growth data. Both groups were statistically similar in that the mean average was about a 4th grade level equivalency and the groups had similar numbers of grade level students. The significant findings were in the amount of growth made using the ISN. The control group started with a mean average of 586.6 and ended with a mean average of 697.1, making about one year’s growth from a 4th to a 5th grade level equivalency. The experimental group started with a mean average of 585.2 and ended with a mean average of 744.2, making about two years growth from a 4th to a 6th grade level equivalency. This is double the growth of the control group. The Cohen’s test resulted in a score of 0.311 which describes that the teaching method, the use of the ISN in the math classroom had a medium impact on student growth.

Prevalence and time course of acute mountain sickness in older children and adolescents after rapid ascent to 3450 meters

OBJECTIVE: Acute mountain sickness is a frequent and debilitating complication of high-altitude exposure, but there is little information on the prevalence and time course of acute mountain sickness in children and adolescents after rapid ascent by mechanical transportation to 3500 m, an altitude at which major tourist destinations are located throughout the world. METHODS: We performed serial assessments of acute mountain sickness (Lake Louise scores) in 48 healthy nonacclimatized children and adolescents (mean +/- SD age: 13.7 +/- 0.3 years; 20 girls and 28 boys), with no previous high-altitude experience, 6, 18, and 42 hours after arrival at the Jungfraujoch high-altitude research station (3450 m), which was reached through a 2.5-hour train ascent. RESULTS: We found that the overall prevalence of acute mountain sickness during the first 3 days at high altitude was 37.5%. Rates were similar for the 2 genders and decreased progressively during the stay (25% at 6 hours, 21% at 18 hours, and 8% at 42 hours). None of the subjects needed to be evacuated to lower altitude. Five subjects needed symptomatic treatment and responded well. CONCLUSION: After rapid ascent to high altitude, the prevalence of acute mountain sickness in children and adolescents was relatively low; the clinical manifestations were benign and resolved rapidly. These findings suggest that, for the majority of healthy nonacclimatized children and adolescents, travel to 3500 m is safe and pharmacologic prophylaxis for acute mountain sickness is not needed.

Routine vaccination against pertussis and the risk of childhood asthma: a population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND: In industrialized countries vaccination coverage remains suboptimal, partly because of perception of an increased risk of asthma. Epidemiologic studies of the association between childhood vaccinations and asthma have provided conflicting results, possibly for methodologic reasons such as unreliable vaccination data, biased reporting, and reverse causation. A recent review stressed the need for additional, adequately controlled large-scale studies. OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to determine if routine childhood vaccination against pertussis was associated with subsequent development of childhood wheezing disorders and asthma in a large population-based cohort study. METHODS: In 6811 children from the general population born between 1993 and 1997 in Leicestershire, United Kingdom, respiratory symptom data from repeated questionnaire surveys up to 2003 were linked to independently collected vaccination data from the National Health Service database. We compared incident wheeze and asthma between children of different vaccination status (complete, partial, and no vaccination against pertussis) by computing hazard ratios. Analyses were based on 6048 children, 23 201 person-years of follow-up, and 2426 cases of new-onset wheeze. RESULTS: There was no evidence for an increased risk of wheeze or asthma in children vaccinated against pertussis compared with nonvaccinated children. Adjusted hazard ratios comparing fully and partially vaccinated with nonvaccinated children were close to one for both incident wheeze and asthma. CONCLUSION: This study provides no evidence of an association between vaccination against pertussis in infancy and an increased risk of later wheeze or asthma and does not support claims that vaccination against pertussis might significantly increase the risk of childhood asthma.