Uses and misuses of the STROBE statement: bibliographic study
Uses and misuses of the STROBE statement: bibliographic study
复制标题
DOI：
10.1136/bmjopen-2010-000048
复制
发表时间：
2011-01-01
期刊：
影响因子：
2.9
通讯作者：
Egger, Matthias
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
da Costa, Bruno R.;Cevallos, Myriam;Egger, Matthias
目的：适当的报告是将研究成果应用于临床的核心。加强流行病学观察性研究的报告(STROBE)建议包括一份22项清单，为报告队列、病例对照和横断面研究提供指导，以促进对结果的批判性评估和解释。STROBE于2007年10月在包括《柳叶刀》、《英国医学杂志》、《内科医学年鉴》和《公共科学图书馆·医学》在内的几种期刊上发表。在修订STROBE建议的框架内，作者检查了过去使用STROBE语句的背景和情况。设计：作者在2010年8月的科学网络数据库中搜索引用STROBE的文章，并使用标准化的试点数据提取表格随机抽取了100篇文章。在观察性研究和系统评价(包括荟萃分析)中使用频闪被归类为适当或不适当。使用STROBE来指导报告观察性研究被认为是适当的。不恰当的使用包括将STROBE用作评估研究方法学质量的工具或作为如何设计和进行研究的指南。结果：作者确定了640篇引用STROBE的文章。在随机抽样的100篇文章中，约有一半是观察性研究(32%)或系统综述(19%)。评论、社论和信件占15%，方法论文章占8%，推荐和叙述性评论占26%。在32项观察性研究中，26项(81%)适当地使用了闪光灯，3项(10%)被认为是不适当的。在19篇系统评价中，10篇(53%)不恰当地使用STROBE作为评估研究质量的工具。结论：STROBE报告建议经常被不适当地用于系统评价和荟萃分析，作为评估观察性研究方法学质量的工具。
Objectives: Appropriate reporting is central to the application of findings from research to clinical practice. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations consist of a checklist of 22 items that provide guidance on the reporting of cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies, in order to facilitate critical appraisal and interpretation of results. STROBE was published in October 2007 in several journals including The Lancet, BMJ, Annals of Internal Medicine and PLoS Medicine. Within the framework of the revision of the STROBE recommendations, the authors examined the context and circumstances in which the STROBE statement was used in the past.Design: The authors searched the Web of Science database in August 2010 for articles which cited STROBE and examined a random sample of 100 articles using a standardised, piloted data extraction form. The use of STROBE in observational studies and systematic reviews (including meta-analyses) was classified as appropriate or inappropriate. The use of STROBE to guide the reporting of observational studies was considered appropriate. Inappropriate uses included the use of STROBE as a tool to assess the methodological quality of studies or as a guideline on how to design and conduct studies.Results: The authors identified 640 articles that cited STROBE. In the random sample of 100 articles, about half were observational studies (32%) or systematic reviews (19%). Comments, editorials and letters accounted for 15%, methodological articles for 8%, and recommendations and narrative reviews for 26% of articles. Of the 32 observational studies, 26 (81%) made appropriate use of STROBE, and three uses (10%) were considered inappropriate. Among 19 systematic reviews, 10 (53%) used STROBE inappropriately as a tool to assess study quality.Conclusions: The STROBE reporting recommendations are frequently used inappropriately in systematic reviews and meta-analyses as an instrument to assess the methodological quality of observational studies.