Dataset Information

Impact of STROBE statement publication on quality of observational study reporting: interrupted time series versus before-after analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In uncontrolled before-after studies, CONSORT was shown to improve the reporting of randomised trials. Before-after studies ignore underlying secular trends and may overestimate the impact of interventions. Our aim was to assess the impact of the 2007 STROBE statement publication on the quality of observational study reporting, using both uncontrolled before-after analyses and interrupted time series.

Methods

For this quasi-experimental study, original articles reporting cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies published between 2004 and 2010 in the four dermatological journals having the highest 5-year impact factors (? 4) were selected. We compared the proportions of STROBE items (STROBE score) adequately reported in each article during three periods, two pre STROBE period (2004-2005 and 2006-2007) and one post STROBE period (2008-2010). Segmented regression analysis of interrupted time series was also performed.

Results

Of the 456 included articles, 187 (41%) reported cohort studies, 166 (36.4%) cross-sectional studies, and 103 (22.6%) case-control studies. The median STROBE score was 57% (range, 18%-98%). Before-after analysis evidenced significant STROBE score increases between the two pre-STROBE periods and between the earliest pre-STROBE period and the post-STROBE period (median score2004-05 48% versus median score2008-10 58%, p<0.001) but not between the immediate pre-STROBE period and the post-STROBE period (median score2006-07 58% versus median score2008-10 58%, p?=?0.42). In the pre STROBE period, the six-monthly mean STROBE score increased significantly, by 1.19% per six-month period (absolute increase 95%CI, 0.26% to 2.11%, p?=?0.016). By segmented analysis, no significant changes in STROBE score trends occurred (-0.40%; 95%CI, -2.20 to 1.41; p?=?0.64) in the post STROBE statement publication.

Interpretation

The quality of reports increased over time but was not affected by STROBE. Our findings raise concerns about the relevance of uncontrolled before-after analysis for estimating the impact of guidelines.

SUBMITTER: Bastuji-Garin S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3753332 | biostudies-literature | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Impact of STROBE statement publication on quality of observational study reporting: interrupted time series versus before-after analysis.

Bastuji-Garin Sylvie S Sbidian Emilie E Gaudy-Marqueste Caroline C Ferrat Emilie E Roujeau Jean-Claude JC Richard Marie-Aleth MA Canoui-Poitrine Florence F

PloS one 20130826 8

<h4>Background</h4>In uncontrolled before-after studies, CONSORT was shown to improve the reporting of randomised trials. Before-after studies ignore underlying secular trends and may overestimate the impact of interventions. Our aim was to assess the impact of the 2007 STROBE statement publication on the quality of observational study reporting, using both uncontrolled before-after analyses and interrupted time series.<h4>Methods</h4>For this quasi-experimental study, original articles reportin ...[more]

PMID: 23990867

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundObservational studies are the most frequently published studies in literature. When randomized controlled trials cannot be conducted because of ethical or practical considerations, an observational study design is the first choice. The STROBE Statement (STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology) was developed to provide guidance on how to adequately report observational studies.ObjectivesThe objectives were 1) to evaluate the quality of reporting of observational studies of otorhinolaryngologic literature using the STROBE Statement checklist, 2) to compare the quality of reporting of observational studies in the top 5 Ear, Nose, Throat (ENT) journals versus the top 5 general medical journals and 3) to formulate recommendations to improve adequate reporting of observational research in otorhinolaryngologic literature.MethodsThe top 5 general medical journals and top 5 otorhinolaryngologic journals were selected based on their ISI Web of Knowledge impact factors. On August 3rd, 2015, we performed a PubMed search using different filters to retrieve observational articles from these journals. Studies were selected from 2010 to 2014 for the general medical journals and from 2015 for the ENT journals. We assessed all STROBE items to examine how many items were reported adequately for each journal type.ResultsThe articles in the top 5 general medical journals (n = 11) reported a mean of 69.2% (95% confidence interval (CI): 65.8%-72.7%; median 70.6%), whereas the top 5 ENT journals (n = 29) reported a mean of 51.4% (95% CI: 47.7%-55.0%; median 50.0%). The two journal types reported STROBE items significantly different (p < .001).ConclusionQuality of reporting of observational studies in otorhinolaryngologic articles can considerably enhance. The quality of reporting was better in general medical journals compared to ENT journals. To improve the quality of reporting of observational studies, we recommend authors and editors to endorse and actively implement the STROBE Statement.

Project description:BackgroundOperative vaginal birth is a common procedure used to expedite birth after full cervical dilatation where there is a clinical need to do so (15% of births in the UK in 2016). The acquisition of skills for operative vaginal birth is dependent on the exposure of junior obstetricians to situations in which they can undertake directly supervised learning from senior accouchers. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has recently introduced the first structured course in operative vaginal birth. To date, there have been no attempts to determine the clinical impact of a structured training package for operative vaginal birth.MethodsThe STROBE study is a quasi-experimental before-after interrupted time-series study of the effect of simulation training in operative vaginal birth for obstetricians on clinical outcomes of women and babies following operative vaginal birth. Similar to a stepped-wedge design, the intervention will be gradually implemented in all participating units but at different time periods. The primary outcome is failed operative vaginal birth with the first intended instrument. Secondary maternal outcomes are; use of second instrument to achieve operative vaginal birth, caesarean section, episiotomy, perineal trauma (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th degree tear), cervical tear requiring suturing, general anaesthesia and estimated blood loss. Secondary neonatal outcomes are; Apgar score at one, five, and ten minutes, Umbilical artery pH, shoulder dystocia, admission to Neonatal Intensive Care Unit and death within 28 days of birth. The analysis will be intention-to-treat (per unit) on the primary and secondary outcomes. The STROBE study received approval from the Health Research Authority and is sponsored by North Bristol NHS Trust. Results will be published in an open-access peer-reviewed medical journal within one year of completion of data gathering.DiscussionThe STROBE study will help establish our understanding of the effectiveness of locally-delivered simulation training for operative vaginal birth. Robust evidence supporting the effectiveness of such an approach would add weight to the argument supporting regular, local training for junior obstetricians in operative vaginal birth.Trial registrationISRCTN11760611 05/03/2018 (retrospectively registered).

Project description:BackgroundThe preliminary results of a study are usually presented as an abstract in conference meetings. The reporting quality of those abstracts and the relationship between their study designs and full paper publication rate is unknown. We hypothesized that randomized controlled trials are more likely to be published as full papers than observational studies.Methods154 oral abstracts presented at the World Congress of Sports Injury Prevention 2005 Oslo and the corresponding full paper publication were identified and analysed. The main outcome measures were frequency of publication, time to publication, impact factor, CONSORT (for Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) score, STROBE (for Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) score, and minor and major inconsistencies between the abstract and the full paper publication.ResultsOverall, 76 of the 154 (49%) presented abstracts were published as full papers in a peer-reviewed journal with an impact factor of 1.946 ± 0.812. No significant difference existed between the impact factor for randomized controlled trials (2.122 ± 1.015) and observational studies (1.913 ± 0.765, p = 0.469). The full papers for the randomized controlled trials were published after an average (SD) of 17 months (± 13 months); for observational studies, the average (SD) was 12 months (± 14 months) (p = 0.323). A trend was observed in this study that a higher percentage of randomized controlled trial abstracts were published as full papers (71% vs. 47%, p = 0.078) than observational trials. The reporting quality of abstracts, published as full papers, significantly increased compared to conference abstracts both in randomized control studies (Consort5.7 ± 0.7 to 7.2 ± 1.3; p = 0.018, CI -2.7 to -0.32) and in observational studies (STROBE: 8.2 ± 1.3 to 8.6 ± 1.4; p = 0.007, CI -0.63 to -0.10). All of the published abstracts had at least one minor inconsistency (title, authors, research center, outcome presentation, conclusion), while 65% had at least major inconsistencies (study objective, hypothesis, study design, primary outcome measures, sample size, statistical analysis, results, SD/CI). Comparing the results of conference and full paper; results changed in 90% vs. 68% (randomized, controlled studies versus observational studies); data were added (full paper reported more result data) in 60% vs. 30%, and deleted (full paper reported fewer result data) in 40% vs. 30%.ConclusionsNo significant differences with respect to type of study (randomized controlled versus observational), impact factor, and time to publication existed for the likelihood that a World Congress of Sports Injury conference abstract could be published as a full paper.

Dataset Information

Impact of STROBE statement publication on quality of observational study reporting: interrupted time series versus before-after analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Interpretation

Publications

Impact of STROBE statement publication on quality of observational study reporting: interrupted time series versus before-after analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets