Literature DB >> 18049192

Some guidelines on guidelines: they should come with expiration dates.

Kenneth J Rothman1, Charles Poole.   

Abstract

The STROBE guidelines (for Strengthening the Reporting of OBservational Studies in Epidemiology) add to a lengthy catalog of attempts to keep epidemiologists on more or less straight and more or less narrow paths charted by guideline authors. STROBE has an ambitious goal, and may prove highly useful for some. It raises concern, however, about a problem generic to guidelines, namely how long they will be useful. Guidelines may be inevitable, but they can foster ossification and be counterproductive. Who today would be happy with epidemiology guidelines issued in, say, 1960, 1970, 1980, or even, 1990? One solution is to offer each set of guidelines with an expiration date, beyond which it would cease to apply. Such a policy would at least prompt revisions. We propose that the STROBE guidelines might expire on 31 December 2010 or 3 years after any revision.

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 18049192     DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181571259

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Epidemiology        ISSN: 1044-3983            Impact factor:   4.822


  5 in total

1.  [Commentary on the STROBE statement. A checklist for observational studies improves transparency].

Authors:  M Battegay
Journal:  Internist (Berl)       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 0.743

2.  Rigor, Transparency, and Reporting Social Science Research: Why Guidelines Don't Have to Kill Your Story.

Authors:  Tracy Wharton
Journal:  Res Soc Work Pract       Date:  2015-12-31

Review 3.  Design and statistical analysis of oral medicine studies: common pitfalls.

Authors:  L Baccaglini; J J Shuster; J Cheng; D W Theriaque; V J Schoenbach; S L Tomar; C Poole
Journal:  Oral Dis       Date:  2009-10-23       Impact factor: 3.511

4.  ISPOR Health Policy Council proposed Good Research Practices for comparative effectiveness research: benefit or harm?

Authors:  Til Stürmer; Tim Carey; Charles Poole
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2009-10-08       Impact factor: 5.725

Review 5.  Blood and urine cadmium, blood pressure, and hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Carolyn M Gallagher; Jaymie R Meliker
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2010-08-17       Impact factor: 9.031

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.