Using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement to Assess Reporting of Observational Trials in Hand Surgery

Abstract

Purpose To use the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement checklist to critically evaluate the change in quality of observational trial reporting in the Journal of Hand Surgery American between 2005 and 2011. Methods A cross-sectional analysis of observational studies published in Journal of Hand Surgery American was designed to sample 2 6-month periods of publication (March 2005 - August 2005 and June 2011 - November 2011). Fifty-one items were extracted from the STROBE statement for evaluation. Overall STROBE compliance rates for articles and specific checklist items were determined. Final compliance percentages from each period were compared by Student t-testing. Changes in item compliance over time were quantified. Results Overall compliance with the STROBE statement was 38% (range, 10-54%) in 2005 and 58% (range, 39%-85%) for 2011 manuscripts representing a significant improvement. Seventy-five percent or greater of articles (2005/2011) provided the explicit reporting of background (100%/97%), follow-up time (85%/94%), overall interpretation of data (100%/94%), and results of similar studies (95%/89%). Twenty-five percent or less of articles provided the study design in the abstract (10%/20%), a clear description of the study's setting (10%/23%), the handling of missing data (0%/6%), the potential directions of bias (5%/11%) and use of a power analysis (0%/17%). Eighty-six percent (44/51) of items were more frequently satisfied in 2011 articles compared to 2005 publications. Absolute increases in compliance rates of ≥40% were noted in 10 items (20%) with no worsening in compliance for an individual item over 6%. Discussion The overall quality of the reporting of observational trials in Journal of Hand Surgery American improved from 2005 to 2011. Current observational trials in hand surgery could still benefit from increased reporting of methodologic details including the use of power analyses, the handling of missing data, and consideration of potential bias.

Evaluation of the Quality of Reporting of Observational Studies in Otorhinolaryngology - Based on the STROBE Statement

“…In other research fields, like ophthalmology and hand surgery, items like bias (item 9), the explanation of missing data (item 12c), use of a flow-diagram (item 13c) and indicating missing data for each variable of interest (item 14b) scored similarly insufficient to the articles published in ENT journals [21,22]. Items which scored better in these research fields were presenting key elements of study design early in the paper (item 4), defining all outcomes, exposures, predictors, potential confounders and effect modifiers (item 7), describing loss to follow-up/matching of cases and controls/sampling (item 12d) and displaying characteristics of study participants (item 14c).…”

Influence of Behavioral Theory on Fruit and Vegetable Intervention Effectiveness Among Children: A Meta-Analysis

“…Behavioral interventionists need to establish intervention design and implementation reporting conventions (as others have done for other types of interventions and studies [93][94][95] to provide clarity and permit comparability of studies in reviews and meta-analyses. Recent and current efforts to consistently classify behavioral intervention procedures [96][97][98] provide an important component for consistent reporting, but these efforts need to be extended to considerations of theory and non-theory based aspects in interventions.…”

The Quality of Control Groups in Nonrandomized Studies Published in the Journal of Hand Surgery

“…The concerns over underreporting bias have led to standardized guidelines for conducting observational research (16, 37). Recently, Soresnen et al identified an improvement in the quality of observational research reporting in hand surgery but not in the discussion of potential bias (38). Therefore, it is critical that authors discuss their control population.…”