Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalizability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover 3 main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors, to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to all 3 study designs and 4 are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available at http://www.annals.org and on the Web sites of PLoS Medicine and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.

Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalizability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies. We convened a two-day workshop, in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.

Much medical research is observational. The reporting of observational studies is often of insufficient quality. Poor reporting hampers the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a study and the generalisability of its results. Taking into account empirical evidence and theoretical considerations, a group of methodologists, researchers, and editors developed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations to improve the quality of reporting of observational studies. The STROBE Statement consists of a checklist of 22 items, which relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies and four are specific to each of the three study designs. The STROBE Statement provides guidance to authors about how to improve the reporting of observational studies and facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of studies by reviewers, journal editors and readers. This explanatory and elaboration document is intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the STROBE Statement. The meaning and rationale for each checklist item are presented. For each item, one or several published examples and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature are provided. Examples of useful flow diagrams are also included. The STROBE Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www. strobe-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of observational research.Present article is Russian-language translation of the original manuscript edited by Doctor of Medicine R.T. Saygitov. Present translation was first published in Digital Diagnostics. doi: 10.17816/DD70821. It is published with minor changes related to the literary editing of the translation itself.

We investigated whether the occurrence of venous thrombosis in young women who use oral contraceptives might be explained by the factor V Leiden mutation, which leads to resistance to activated protein C and enhances susceptibility to thrombosis. We compared 155 consecutive premenopausal women, aged 15 to 49, who had developed deep venous thrombosis in the absence of other underlying diseases, with 169 Population controls. The risk of thrombosis among users of oral contraceptives was increased 4-fold (relative risk 3-8 [95% Cl 2-4-6-0]). The risk of thrombosis among carriers of the mutation compared with non-carriers was increased 8-fold (7-9 [3-2-19-4]). Compared with women who did not use oral contraceptives and were not carriers of the mutation, the risk of thrombosis among those with both risk factors was increased more than 30-fold (34-7 [7-8-154]). Recalculation of population incidences from these relative risks shows that the absolute risk of venous thrombosis in young women who use oral contraceptives is much larger when they carry the factor V Leiden mutation. When a young woman develops thrombosis, her factor V Leiden Status should be considered in counselling about her future method of contraception.

A deficiency of protein C (PC), antithrombin, or protein S is strongly associated with deep-vein thrombosis in selected patients and their families. However, the strength of the association with venous thrombosis in the general population is unknown. This study was a population-based, patient-control study of 474 consecutive outpatients, aged less than 70 years, with a first, objectively diagnosed, episode of venous thrombosis and without an underlying malignant disease, and 474 healthy controls who matched for age and sex. Relative risks were estimated as matched odds ratios. Based on a single measurement, there were 22 (4.6%) patients with a PC deficiency (PC activity, less than 0.67 U/mL or PC antigen, less than 0.33 U/mL when using coumarins). Among the controls, the frequency was 1.5% (seven subjects). Thus, there is a threefold increase in risk of thrombosis in subjects with PC levels below 0.67 or 0.33 U/mL [matched odds ratio, 3.1; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.4 to 7.0]. When a PC deficiency was based on two repeated measurements, the relative risk for thrombosis increased to 3.8 (95% CI, 1.3 to 10); when it was based on DNA-confirmation, the relative risk increased further to 6.5 (95% CI, 1.8 to 24). In addition, there was a gradient in thrombosis risk, according to PC levels. The results for antithrombin are similar to those for PC, although less pronounced (relative risk, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.0 to 4.7). We could not find an association between reduced total protein S (relative risk, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.3 to 1.8) or free protein S levels (relative risk, 1.6; 95% CI, 0.6 to 4.0) and thrombosis risk. Although not very frequent, PC and antithrombin deficiency are clearly associated with an increase in thrombosis risk.

No abstract

A self-administered health-assessment questionnaire (HAQ) was completed by 38 Dutch rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients and the results compared to those obtained objectively when the same subjects were interviewed and asked to perform standardised tasks included in the HAQ. The results of the interview and the questionnaire showed a high degree of overall correlation and inter-component correlation. The correlation was comparable in outpatients with milder disease and in patients with more severe disease and was not influenced by age. The questionnaire offers a valid approach to the assessment of the functional disability of RA patients.

No abstract