Quality of observational studies in prestigious journals of occupational medicine and health based on Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: a cross-sectional study

Objective

The present study applied the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement to observational studies published in prestigious occupational medicine and health journals.

Results

A total of 60 articles was evaluated. All sub-items were reported in 63.74% (95% confidence interval [CI], 56.24–71.24%), not reported in 29.70% (95% CI, 20.2–39.2%), and not applicable in 6.56% (95% CI, 4.86–8.26%) of the studies. Of the 45 sub-items investigated in this survey, eight were reported 100% of the time, 13 were addressed in more than 90% of the articles, 22 were included in more than 75% of the studies, and 27 sub-items were applied in more than 50% of the articles published in the journals included in this study.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13104-018-3367-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Assessing the reporting quality of influenza outbreaks in the community

BACKGROUND

High-quality reporting of outbreak characteristics is fundamental to understand the behaviour of various strains of influenza virus and the impact of outbreak management strategies. However, few studies have systematically evaluated the quality of outbreak reporting.

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a systematic analysis and assessment for reporting quality of influenza outbreaks based on a modified version of the STROBE statement, and to examine characteristics associated with reporting quality.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted across 3 online databases (PubMed, Web of Science, MEDLINE) for reports of influenza outbreaks (pandemic H1N1, avian, seasonal). The quality of reports meeting our eligibility criteria was assessed using the Modified STROBE criteria and assigned a score of 30. Mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported for comparisons of study characteristics.

RESULTS

Sixty-four outbreak reports were available for analyses. The average Modified STROBE score was 20/30. Peer-reviewed articles were associated with a better quality of reporting (MD 2.79, 95% CI 0.79-4.78). Likewise, reports from authors affiliated with public health agencies were associated with better quality than those from academic institutions (MD 1.65, 95% CI-0.27-3.56).

CONCLUSIONS

The development of explicit reporting guidelines specifically geared towards reporting of outbreak investigations proved to be useful. Providing information on patient characteristics, investigation details in introduction and results, as well as addressing limitations that could have biased the findings, were frequently missing in the published reports.

Sensitivity analysis of weight reduction results of an observational cohort study in overweight and obese children and adolescents in Germany: the evakuj study

In the German EvAKuJ observational cohort study, changes in the body mass index standard deviation score (BMI-SDS) of overweight and obese children and adolescents as primary outcome of multimodal (short, inpatient or long, outpatient) weight-loss interventions are difficult to interpret. Published intention-to-treat (ITT) and per protocol data obtained at the end of the intervention (T1), one year (T2), and two years (T3) after its end were used for sensitivity analysis of treatment success rates. The odds ratio and the number needed to treat (NNT) for BMI-SDS reduction of at least -0.2 (successful treatment) and at least -0.5 (good treatment success) were related to spontaneous BMI-SDS reduction rates in a hypothetical control group (control event rate, CER). At T1, treatment seems to be effective up to a CER of 10% in inpatients and of 5% in outpatients. ITT analysis, compromised by a loss to follow-up of 81 to 90% (inpatients) and 57 to 66% (outpatients), indicated that treatment may become less effective at a CER above 1% in inpatients (e.g., successful treatment at T2: NNT=106, at T3: NNT=51), and above 5% in outpatients (successful treatment at T2: NNT=7, at T3: NNT=8; good treatment success at T2 and T3: NNT=25). Positive short-term effects of inpatient treatment of overweight and obese children and adolescents may not be maintained in the long term. Long-term effectiveness of outpatient treatment may depend on age and the degree of overweight.

Issues of reporting in observational studies in veterinary medicine

Observational studies are common in veterinary medicine; the results may be used to inform decision-making, future research, or as inputs to systematic reviews or risk assessment. To be of use, the results must be published, all of the outcomes that were assessed must be included in the publication, and the research (methods and results) must be reported in sufficient detail that the reader can evaluate the internal and external validity. In human healthcare, concerns about the completeness of reporting - and evidence that poor reporting is associated with study results - have led to the creation of reporting guidelines; these include the STROBE statement for observational studies. There is evidence from a limited body of research that there also are reporting inadequacies in veterinary observational studies. There are differences between human and veterinary observational studies that might be relevant to recommendations for reporting. Such differences include: the use of observational studies in animal populations for simultaneously estimating disease frequency and risk-factor identification; the distinction between the animal owners who consent to participate and the animals that are the study subjects; and the complexity of organizational levels inherent in animal research (in particular, for studies in livestock species). In veterinary medicine, it is common to have clustering within outcomes (due to animal grouping) and clustering of predictor variables. We argue that there is a compelling need for the scientific community involved in veterinary observational studies to use the STROBE statement, use an amended version of STROBE, or to develop and use reporting guidelines that are specific to veterinary medicine to improve reporting of these studies.

The STROBE statement and neuropsychology: lighting the way toward evidence-based practice

Reporting appropriate research detail across clinical disciplines is often inconsistent or incomplete. Insufficient report detail reduces confidence in findings, makes study replication more difficult, and decreases the precision of data available for critical review including meta-analysis. In response to these concerns, cooperative attempts across multiple specialties have developed explicit research reporting standards to guide publication detail. These recommendations have been widely adopted by high impact medical journals, but have not yet been widely embraced by neuropsychology. The STROBE Statement (STrengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology) is particularly relevant to neuropsychology since clinical research is often based on non-funded studies of patient samples. In this paper we describe the STROBE Statement and demonstrate how STROBE criteria, applied to reporting of neuropsychological findings, will maintain neuropsychology's position as a leader in quantifying brain-behavior relationships. We also provide specific recommendations for data reporting and disclosure of perceived conflicts of interest that will further enhance reporting transparency for possible perceived sources of bias. In an era in which evidence-based practice assumes an increasingly prominent role, improved reporting standards will promote better patient care, assist in developing quality practice guidelines, and ensure that neuropsychology remains a vigorous discipline in the clinical neurosciences that consciously aspires to high methodological rigor.

Quality of Cohort Studies Reporting Post the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement

The quality of reporting of cohort studies published in the most prestigious scientific medical journals was investigated to indicate to what extent the items in the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist are addressed. Six top scientific medical journals with high impact factor were selected including New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, Lancet, British Medical Journal, Archive of Internal Medicine, and Canadian Medical Association Journal. Ten cohort studies published in 2010 were selected randomly from each journal. The percentage of items in the STROBE checklist that were addressed in each study was investigated. The total percentage of items addressed by these studies was 69.3 (95% confidence interval: 59.6 to 79.0). We concluded that reporting of cohort studies published in the most prestigious scientific medical journals is not clear enough yet. The reporting of other types of observational studies such as case-control and cross-sectional studies particularly those being published in less prestigious journals expected to be much more imprecise.