Dataset Information

Quality of Reporting and Study Design of CKD Cohort Studies Assessing Mortality in the Elderly Before and After STROBE: A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement was published in October 2007 to improve quality of reporting of observational studies. The aim of this review was to assess the impact of the STROBE statement on observational study reporting and study design quality in the nephrology literature.

Study design

Systematic literature review.

Setting & population

European and North American, Pre-dialysis Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) cohort studies.

Selection criteria for studies

Studies assessing the association between CKD and mortality in the elderly (>65 years) published from 1st January 2002 to 31st December 2013 were included, following systematic searching of MEDLINE & EMBASE.

Predictor

Time period before and after the publication of the STROBE statement.

Outcome

Quality of study reporting using the STROBE statement and quality of study design using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS), Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tools.

Results

37 papers (11 Pre & 26 Post STROBE) were identified from 3621 potential articles. Only four of the 22 STROBE items and their sub-criteria (objectives reporting, choice of quantitative groups and description of and carrying out sensitivity analysis) showed improvements, with the majority of items showing little change between the period before and after publication of the STROBE statement. Pre- and post-period analysis revealed a Manuscript STROBE score increase (median score 77.8% (Inter-quartile range [IQR], 64.7-82.0) vs 83% (IQR, 78.4-84.9, p = 0.05). There was no change in quality of study design with identical median scores in the two periods for NOS (Manuscript NOS score 88.9), SIGN (Manuscript SIGN score 83.3) and CASP (Manuscript CASP score 91.7) tools.

Limitations

Only 37 Studies from Europe and North America were included from one medical specialty. Assessment of study design largely reliant on good reporting.

Conclusions

This study highlights continuing deficiencies in the reporting of STROBE items and their sub-criteria in cohort studies in nephrology. There was weak evidence of improvement in the overall reporting quality, with no improvement in methodological quality of CKD cohort studies between the period before and after publication of the STROBE statement.

SUBMITTER: Rao A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4863970 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn 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.MethodsFor 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.ResultsOf 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.InterpretationThe 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.

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.