Assessing the Quality of Reporting of Observational Studies in Cancer
Assessing the Quality of Reporting of Observational Studies in Cancer
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.annepidem.2009.09.007
复制
发表时间：
2010-01-01
影响因子：
5.6
通讯作者：
Zintzaras, Elias
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Papathanasiou, Afroditi A.;Zintzaras, Elias
绝大多数癌症流行病学研究都是观察性的。然而，对已发表的观察性研究（OS）的报告不足可能会限制研究结果的普遍性和可信度。本研究的目的是评估OS的报告质量，涉及cancer.METHODS：PubMed检索2008年1月至2009年2月发表的OS涉及癌症的系统性综述（SR）。根据STROBE（加强流行病学观察性研究的报告）声明（被认为是良好报告OS必不可少的项目清单），对SR中提供的引文的报告质量进行了评价。评价侧重于25个方法学项目/子项目。期刊的排名在报告的质量的影响也evaluated.RESULTS：检索确定了244个合格的OS包括在7个SR。90%以上的研究报告了9个项目/子项目，70%以上的研究报告了16个项目/子项目。OS的一些基本方法学方面（如匹配、绝对风险、缺失数据和流程图）报告不足。7名员工代表在大多数项目上存在显著差异。高，低排名的期刊不同，只有在报告的结果估计和precision.CONCLUSIONS：在OS癌症的报告质量被认为是令人满意的，虽然某些项目被低估。报告的进一步改进可能会提高观察性研究的有效性。Ann Epidemiol 2010;20：67-73. (C)2010年爱思唯尔公司All rights reserved.
PURPOSE: The vast majority of epidemiological studies in cancer are observational. However, inadequate reporting of the published observational studies (OS) may restrict the generalizability and credibility of study results. The aim of this study was to evaluate the reporting quality of OS concerning cancer.METHODS: Pub Med was searched for systematic reviews (SRs) of OS involving cancer published from January 2008 through February 2009. The citations provided in the SRs were evaluated for their reporting quality according to the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) statement, a checklist of items that are considered essential for good reporting of OS. The evaluation was focused on 25 methodological items/sub-items. The effect of journals' ranking in quality of reporting was also evaluated.RESULTS: The search identified 244 eligible OS included in seven SRs. Nine items/sub-items were reported by more than 90% of studies and 16 items/sub-items were reported by more than 70%. Some essential methodological aspects of OS (such as matching, absolute risks, missing data and flow diagram) were under-reported. Significant differences were found among the seven SRs in the majority of the items. High and lower ranked journals were different only in reporting of results estimates and precision.CONCLUSIONS: The quality of reporting in OS in cancer was considered satisfactory, although certain items were underreported. Further improvement of reporting may enhance the validity of observational research. Ann Epidemiol 2010;20:67-73. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.