Making sense of rapidly evolving evidence on genetic associations is crucial to making genuine advances in human genomics and the eventual integration of this information in the practice of medicine and public health. Assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of this evidence, and hence the ability to synthesize it, has been limited by inadequate reporting of results. The STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA) initiative builds on the STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement and provides additions to 12 of the 22 items on the STROBE checklist. The additions concern population stratification, genotyping errors, modelling haplotype variation, Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium, replication, selection of participants, rationale for choice of genes and variants, treatment effects in studying quantitative traits, statistical methods, relatedness, reporting of descriptive and outcome data and the volume of data issues that are important to consider in genetic association studies. The STREGA recommendations do not prescribe or dictate how a genetic association study should be designed, but seek to enhance the transparency of its reporting, regardless of choices made during design, conduct or analysis.

Julian Little and colleagues present the STREGA recommendations, which are aimed at improving the reporting of genetic association studies.

Many of our results for both diabetes types are consistent with findings from other limited research in this domain. Contrary to previous research, however, a significant negative relationship was reported between body mass index and PA for the type 2 group. In addition, perceived disability was negatively associated with PA, which, to date, has not been reported in the literature with type 2 individuals. Research and practice related to physical activity promotion for this population should take into account specific demographic and health factors associated with PA.

No abstract

No abstract