Literature DB >> 30423373

A cross-sectional bibliometric study showed suboptimal journal endorsement rates of STROBE and its extensions.

Melissa K Sharp1, Ružica Tokalić2, Guadalupe Gómez3, Elizabeth Wager4, Douglas G Altman5, Darko Hren6.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The STrengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement provides guidance on reporting observational studies. Many extensions have been created for specialized methods or fields. We determined endorsement prevalence and typology by journals in extension-related fields. STUDY DESIGN AND
SETTING: A published protocol defined search strategies to identify journals publishing observational studies (2007-2017) across seven fields relating to STROBE extensions. We extracted text regarding STROBE, seven STROBE extensions, reporting guidelines Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, and transparent reporting documents/groups: International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) networks. Relationships between endorsing STROBE, endorsing other guidelines, and journal impact factor were tested using chi square and Mann-Whitney tests.
RESULTS: Of 257 unique journals, 12 (5%) required STROBE on submission, 22 (9%) suggested use, 12 (5%) recommended a "relevant guideline," 72 (28%) mentioned it indirectly (via editorial policies or International Committee of Medical Journal Editors recommendations), and 139 (54%) did not mention STROBE. The relevant extension was required by 2 (<1%) journals; 4 (1%) suggested use. STROBE endorsement was not associated with journal impact indices but was with Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses endorsements.
CONCLUSION: Reporting guideline endorsement rates are low; information is vague and scattered. Unambiguous language is needed to improve adherence to reporting guidelines and increase the quality of reporting.
Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords:  Epidemiologic research design; Guidelines as topic; Information dissemination/methods; Observational studies; Reporting guidelines; STROBE

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30423373     DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.11.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  9 in total

1.  Population attributable fraction of leading non-communicable cardiovascular diseases due to leisure-time physical inactivity: a systematic review.

Authors:  Hashel Al Tunaiji; Jennifer C Davis; Mohammad Ali Mansournia; Karim M Khan
Journal:  BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med       Date:  2019-04-09

Review 2.  A scoping review of cohort studies assessing traditional Chinese medicine interventions.

Authors:  Yuting Duan; Zhirui Xu; Jingjing Deng; Yanjia Lin; Yan Zheng; Juexuan Chen; Xiaoyu Tang; Xuan Zhang; Chunzhi Tang; Jiangxia Miao; Zhaoxiang Bian
Journal:  BMC Complement Med Ther       Date:  2020-11-23

3.  Reporting practices for genomic epidemiology of tuberculosis: a systematic review of the literature using STROME-ID guidelines as a benchmark.

Authors:  Brianna Cheng; Marcel A Behr; Benjamin P Howden; Theodore Cohen; Robyn S Lee
Journal:  Lancet Microbe       Date:  2021-03-02

4.  Excess mortality at Christmas due to cardiovascular disease in the HUNT study prospective population-based cohort in Norway.

Authors:  Trine Moholdt; Clifford Afoakwah; Paul Scuffham; Christine F McDonald; Louise M Burrell; Simon Stewart
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2021-03-20       Impact factor: 3.295

5.  The incremental value of the contribution of a biostatistician to the reporting quality in health research-A retrospective, single center, observational cohort study.

Authors:  Ulrike Held; Klaus Steigmiller; Michael Hediger; Victoria L Cammann; Alexandru Garaiman; Sascha Halvachizadeh; Sylvain Losdat; Erin Ashley West; Martina Gosteli; Kelly A Reeve; Stefanie von Felten; Eva Furrer
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-03-04       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Development of ARCADIA: a tool for assessing the quality of peer-review reports in biomedical research.

Authors:  Isabelle Boutron; José Antonio González; Cecilia Superchi; Darko Hren; David Blanco; Roser Rius; Alessandro Recchioni
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-06-08       Impact factor: 2.692

7.  Completeness of reporting of case reports in high-impact medical journals.

Authors:  José A Calvache; Maira Vera-Montoya; Darío Ordoñez; Adrian V Hernandez; Douglas Altman; David Moher
Journal:  Eur J Clin Invest       Date:  2020-03-14       Impact factor: 4.686

8.  Is reporting quality in medical publications associated with biostatisticians as co-authors? A registered report protocol.

Authors:  Ulrike Held; Klaus Steigmiller; Michael Hediger; Martina Gosteli; Kelly A Reeve; Stefanie von Felten; Eva Furrer
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-11-06       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Diastolic dysfunction and mortality in 436 360 men and women: the National Echo Database Australia (NEDA).

Authors:  David Playford; Geoff Strange; David S Celermajer; Geoffrey Evans; Gregory M Scalia; Simon Stewart; David Prior
Journal:  Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2021-04-28       Impact factor: 6.875

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.