Explanation and Elaboration of the Standards of Reporting of Neurological Disorders Checklist: A Guideline for the Reporting of Incidence and Prevalence Studies in Neuroepidemiology

Abstract

Background: Incidence and prevalence studies of neurological disorders play an extremely important role in hypothesis-generation, assessing the burden of disease and planning of health services. However, the assessment of disease estimates is hindered by the poor quality of reporting for such studies. We developed the Standards of Reporting of Neurological Disorders (STROND) guideline in order to improve the quality of reporting of neurological disorders from which prevalence, incidence, and outcomes can be extracted for greater generalisability. Methods: The guideline was developed using a 3-round Delphi technique in order to identify the ‘basic minimum items' important for reporting, as well as some additional ‘ideal reporting items.' An e-consultation process was then used in order to gauge opinion by external neuroepidemiological experts on the appropriateness of the items included in the checklist. Findings: The resultant 15 items checklist and accompanying recommendations were developed using a similar process and structured in a similar manner to the Strengthening of the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist for ease of use. This paper presents the STROND checklist with an explanation and elaboration for each item, as well as examples of good reporting from the neuroepidemiological literature. Conclusions: The introduction and use of the STROND checklist should lead to more consistent, transparent and contextualised reporting of descriptive neuroepidemiological studies that should facilitate international comparisons, and lead to more accessible information for multiple stakeholders, ultimately supporting better healthcare decisions for neurological disorders.

Accuracy of Administrative Data for the Coding of Acute Stroke and TIAs

“…Despite these limitations, our study contributes to the growing body of research on the validity of ICD-10-CA-coded stroke and TIA in administrative data and the importance of reporting observational research consistently and transparently to allow for interprovincial/territorial and international comparisons. 18,19,21,[24][25][26][27][28]…”

The consistent burden in published estimates of delirium occurrence in medical inpatients over four decades: a systematic review and meta-analysis study

“…The previous review used adapted criteria developed by the original authors. [27] We extended this previous approach by also accounting for items referred to in the Standards of Reporting of Neurological Disorders (STROND) criteria [28, 29]. Ultimately, we considered five domains: (i) patient setting, e.g.…”

Updated Criteria for Population-Based Stroke and Transient Ischemic Attack Incidence Studies for the 21st Century

“…To allow comparisons between different stroke incidence studies and analysis of temporal trends, it is important to conduct a study in a way that (a) allows accommodation of both core and supplementary criteria, and (b) follows standard guidelines for reporting study results, such as the Standards of Reporting of Neurological Disorders Checklist (STROND)( Table 2). 60,61 We suggest calling a study that meets both core and supplementary criteria and standard data presentation (Tables 1 and 2) an 'advanced' population-based stroke incidence study. However, such stroke incidence studies are expensive and require special expertise for their design and execution, which is particularly challenging in resource-poor countries.…”

“…Standards for reporting population-based stroke and TIA incidence studies (Adapted from Bennett et al,60 with permission)…”