Selective exposure reporting and Medline indexing limited the search sensitivity for observational studies of the adverse effects of oral contraceptives

Wieland, Susan; Dickersin, Kay

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.11.018

“…Of note, the International Journal of Epidemiology recently launched a new section with 'cohort profiles', that includes detailed information on what was measured at different points in time in particular studies [56,57]. Finally, we advise that authors declare all 'candidate variables' considered for statistical analysis, rather than selectively reporting only those included in the final models (see also item 16a) [58,59].…”

Section: Box 8 Interaction (Effect Modification): the Analysis Of Jomentioning

confidence: 99%

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and elaboration

Vandenbroucke

¹

,

Elm

²

,

Altman³

et al. 2014

International Journal of Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…56,57 Finally, we advise that authors declare all 'candidate variables' considered for statistical analysis, rather than selectively reporting only those included in the final models (see also item 16a). 58 "Total caffeine intake was calculated primarily using US Department of Agriculture food composition sources. In these calculations, it was assumed that the content of caffeine was 137 mg per cup of coffee, 47 mg per cup of tea, 46 mg per can or bottle of cola beverage, and 7 mg per serving of chocolate candy.…”

Section: Explanationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration

Vandenbroucke

¹

,

Elm

²

,

Altman

³

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 generalizability 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. (Epidemiology 2007;18: 805-835) R ational health care practices require knowledge about the etiology and pathogenesis, diagnosis, prognosis and treatment of diseases. Randomized trials provide valuable evidence about treatments and other interventions. However, much of clinical or public health knowledge comes from observational research. 1 About nine of ten research papers published in clinical speciality journals describe observational research. 2,3 The STROBE StatementReporting of observational research is often not detailed and clear enough to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the investigation. 4,5 To improve the reporting of observational research, we developed a checklist of items that should be addressed: the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement (Table 1). Items relate to title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. The STROBE Statement has recently been published in several journals. 6 Our aim is to ensure clear presentation of what was planned, done, and found in an observational study. We stress that the recommendations are not prescriptions for setting up or conducting studies, nor do they dictate methodology or mandate a uniform presentation.STROBE provides general reporting recommendations for descriptive observational studies and studies that investigate 805associations between expos...

show abstract

“…In order to make an in-depth analysis of the scientific output in European bio-medicolegal sciences, with the categorisation of results on the basis of sub-disciplines, branches and topics, we adopted a mixed search strategy, including both MeSH terms and free-text word inquiries, which implies high sensitivity in querying scientific databases [11]. Our method included multiple input parameters, also calling for title and abstract, a search within the "Affiliation" field looking for a forensic/medicolegal corresponding author, and within the "Journal" field looking for a forensic journal included in the category "Medicine, Legal" of the Journal Citation Report (JCR).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bio-medicolegal scientific research in Europe: a comprehensive bibliometric overview

Ferrara

¹

,

Bajanowski²,

Cecchi

³

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In times of globalisation, the future of bio-medicolegal sciences in Europe depends on the scientific community's ability to develop new strategies for research, to introduce new and generally accepted standards, to develop new analytical methods, all in order to draw up inter-site, multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary long-term research projects, eligible for European Union (EU) funding. To analyse the scientific output and to identify the topics of greatest interest and appeal in these sciences, an innovative method has been developed to select and analyse publications. This method has been applied to analyse a total of 21,176 records from PubMed out of which 5,826 papers were suitable for further analysis because they were published in national and international journals in the time between January 1, 2005 and June 1, 2010 by European authors in the field of interest. In 69% of all manuscripts, authors presented results of systematic research (original articles); 84% of the papers were written in English language. The cumulative impact factor increased from 1,670 points in 2005 to 1,878 in 2009, and extrapolated 2,812 points in 2010. The most frequent topics were the description of new analytical methods in forensic toxicology (5.7% of all papers), the analysis of short tandem repeat systems (STR, 5.6%) as well as the analysis of injury mechanisms in forensic pathology and clinical forensic medicine (4.9%). If the impact factor related potential of different topics is calculated (ratio of frequency of papers and frequency of impact points achieved), SIDS research reaches 1.64 points, followed by studies on mtDNA (1.59) and the development of new analytical methods in forensic toxicology (1.49). The findings made in the present bibliometric analysis reveal a clear and interesting overall picture of the European scientific production and productivity and could be used to identify the most innovative research lines.

show abstract

Selective exposure reporting and Medline indexing limited the search sensitivity for observational studies of the adverse effects of oral contraceptives

Cited by 52 publications

References 71 publications

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and elaboration

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and elaboration

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration

Bio-medicolegal scientific research in Europe: a comprehensive bibliometric overview

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About