Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

20 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology using mendelian randomisation (STROBE-MR): explanation and elaboration

ABSTRACT: Mendelian randomisation (MR) studies allow a better understanding of the causal effects of modifiable exposures on health outcomes, but the published evidence is often hampered by inadequate reporting. Reporting guidelines help authors effectively communicate all critical information about what was done and what was found. STROBE-MR (strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology using mendelian randomisation) assists authors in reporting their MR research clearly and transparently. Adopting STROBE-MR should help readers, reviewers, and journal editors evaluate the quality of published MR studies. This article explains the 20 items of the STROBE-MR checklist, along with their meaning and rationale, using terms defined in a glossary. Examples of transparent reporting are used for each item to illustrate best practices.

SUBMITTER: Skrivankova V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8546498 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Similar Datasets

STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology--Molecular Epidemiology (STROBE-ME): an extension of the STROBE Statement.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC3201942 | biostudies-literature

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology-Nutritional Epidemiology (STROBE-nut): An Extension of the STROBE Statement.

Project description:BackgroundConcerns have been raised about the quality of reporting in nutritional epidemiology. Research reporting guidelines such as the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement can improve quality of reporting in observational studies. Herein, we propose recommendations for reporting nutritional epidemiology and dietary assessment research by extending the STROBE statement into Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology-Nutritional Epidemiology (STROBE-nut).Methods and findingsRecommendations for the reporting of nutritional epidemiology and dietary assessment research were developed following a systematic and consultative process, coordinated by a multidisciplinary group of 21 experts. Consensus on reporting guidelines was reached through a three-round Delphi consultation process with 53 external experts. In total, 24 recommendations for nutritional epidemiology were added to the STROBE checklist.ConclusionWhen used appropriately, reporting guidelines for nutritional epidemiology can contribute to improve reporting of observational studies with a focus on diet and health.

| S-EPMC4896435 | biostudies-literature

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology - nutritional epidemiology (STROBE-nut): An extension of the STROBE statement.

Project description:Concerns have been raised about the quality of reporting in nutritional epidemiology. Research reporting guidelines such as the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement can improve quality of reporting in observational studies. Herein, we propose recommendations for reporting nutritional epidemiology and dietary assessment research by extending the STROBE statement into Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology - Nutritional Epidemiology (STROBE-nut). Recommendations for the reporting of nutritional epidemiology and dietary assessment research were developed following a systematic and consultative process, co-ordinated by a multidisciplinary group of 21 experts. Consensus on reporting guidelines was reached through a three-round Delphi consultation process with 53 external experts. In total, 24 recommendations for nutritional epidemiology were added to the STROBE checklist. When used appropriately, reporting guidelines for nutritional epidemiology can contribute to improve reporting of observational studies with a focus on diet and health.

| S-EPMC4988500 | biostudies-literature

Strengthening the reporting of genetic risk prediction studies (GRIPS): explanation and elaboration.

Project description:The rapid and continuing progress in gene discovery for complex diseases is fueling interest in the potential application of genetic risk models for clinical and public health practice. The number of studies assessing the predictive ability is steadily increasing, but they vary widely in completeness of reporting and apparent quality. Transparent reporting of the strengths and weaknesses of these studies is important to facilitate the accumulation of evidence on genetic risk prediction. A multidisciplinary workshop sponsored by the Human Genome Epidemiology Network developed a checklist of 25 items recommended for strengthening the reporting of Genetic RIsk Prediction Studies (GRIPS), building on the principles established by previous reporting guidelines. These recommendations aim to enhance the transparency, quality and completeness of study reporting, and thereby to improve the synthesis and application of information from multiple studies that might differ in design, conduct or analysis.

| S-EPMC3083630 | biostudies-literature

Strengthening the reporting of genetic risk prediction studies (GRIPS): explanation and elaboration.

Project description:The rapid and continuing progress in gene discovery for complex diseases is fuelling interest in the potential application of genetic risk models for clinical and public health practice. The number of studies assessing the predictive ability is steadily increasing, but they vary widely in completeness of reporting and apparent quality. Transparent reporting of the strengths and weaknesses of these studies is important to facilitate the accumulation of evidence on genetic risk prediction. A multidisciplinary workshop sponsored by the Human Genome Epidemiology Network developed a checklist of 25 items recommended for strengthening the reporting of Genetic RIsk Prediction Studies (GRIPS), building on the principles established by prior reporting guidelines. These recommendations aim to enhance the transparency, quality and completeness of study reporting, and thereby to improve the synthesis and application of information from multiple studies that might differ in design, conduct or analysis.

| S-EPMC3088812 | biostudies-literature

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology for respondent-driven sampling studies: "STROBE-RDS" statement.

Project description:ObjectivesRespondent-driven sampling (RDS) is a new data collection methodology used to estimate characteristics of hard-to-reach groups, such as the HIV prevalence in drug users. Many national public health systems and international organizations rely on RDS data. However, RDS reporting quality and available reporting guidelines are inadequate. We carried out a systematic review of RDS studies and present Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology for RDS Studies (STROBE-RDS), a checklist of essential items to present in RDS publications, justified by an explanation and elaboration document.Study design and settingWe searched the MEDLINE (1970-2013), EMBASE (1974-2013), and Global Health (1910-2013) databases to assess the number and geographical distribution of published RDS studies. STROBE-RDS was developed based on STROBE guidelines, following Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines.ResultsRDS has been used in over 460 studies from 69 countries, including the USA (151 studies), China (70), and India (32). STROBE-RDS includes modifications to 12 of the 22 items on the STROBE checklist. The two key areas that required modification concerned the selection of participants and statistical analysis of the sample.ConclusionSTROBE-RDS seeks to enhance the transparency and utility of research using RDS. If widely adopted, STROBE-RDS should improve global infectious diseases public health decision making.

| S-EPMC4669303 | biostudies-literature

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.

Project description:ObjectiveThe 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.ResultsA 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.

| S-EPMC5932818 | biostudies-literature

Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK): explanation and elaboration.

Project description:The REMARK (Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies) guideline includes a checklist which aims to improve the reporting of these types of studies. Here, we expand on the REMARK checklist to enhance its use and effectiveness through better understanding of the intent of each item and why the information is important to report. Each checklist item of the REMARK guideline is explained in detail and accompanied by published examples of good reporting. The paper provides a comprehensive overview to educate on good reporting and provide a valuable reference of issues to consider when designing, conducting, and analyzing tumor marker studies and prognostic studies in medicine in general.

| S-EPMC3362085 | biostudies-literature

STARD 2015 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: explanation and elaboration.

Project description:Diagnostic accuracy studies are, like other clinical studies, at risk of bias due to shortcomings in design and conduct, and the results of a diagnostic accuracy study may not apply to other patient groups and settings. Readers of study reports need to be informed about study design and conduct, in sufficient detail to judge the trustworthiness and applicability of the study findings. The STARD statement (Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) was developed to improve the completeness and transparency of reports of diagnostic accuracy studies. STARD contains a list of essential items that can be used as a checklist, by authors, reviewers and other readers, to ensure that a report of a diagnostic accuracy study contains the necessary information. STARD was recently updated. All updated STARD materials, including the checklist, are available at http://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/stard Here, we present the STARD 2015 explanation and elaboration document. Through commented examples of appropriate reporting, we clarify the rationale for each of the 30 items on the STARD 2015 checklist, and describe what is expected from authors in developing sufficiently informative study reports.

| S-EPMC5128957 | biostudies-literature

Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies (REMARK): explanation and elaboration.

Project description:BackgroundThe Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK) checklist consists of 20 items to report for published tumor marker prognostic studies. It was developed to address widespread deficiencies in the reporting of such studies. In this paper we expand on the REMARK checklist to enhance its use and effectiveness through better understanding of the intent of each item and why the information is important to report.MethodsREMARK recommends including a transparent and full description of research goals and hypotheses, subject selection, specimen and assay considerations, marker measurement methods, statistical design and analysis, and study results. Each checklist item is explained and accompanied by published examples of good reporting, and relevant empirical evidence of the quality of reporting. We give prominence to discussion of the 'REMARK profile', a suggested tabular format for summarizing key study details.SummaryThe paper provides a comprehensive overview to educate on good reporting and provide a valuable reference for the many issues to consider when designing, conducting, and analyzing tumor marker studies and prognostic studies in medicine in general. To encourage dissemination of the Reporting Recommendations for Tumor Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK): Explanation and Elaboration, this article has also been published in PLoS Medicine.

| S-EPMC3362748 | biostudies-literature

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

Tweets

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data