Cited by 2,969Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyMethodologies in Health Research and Practice

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

Open access
Vandenbroucke, Jan P., von Elm, Erik, Altman, Douglas G., Gøtzsche, Peter C., Mulrow, Cynthia D., Pocock, Stuart J., Poole, Charles, Schlesselman, James J. +1 more·2014·International Journal of Surgery

Abstract

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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.07.014

Cites

218 of 218 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 17

  1. K.J. Rothman, S. Greenland, Case-control studies, in: K.J. Rothman, S. Greenland (Eds.), Modern Epidemiology, second ed., Lippincott, Raven, 1998, pp. 93e114.
  2. P.C. Gøtzsche, Harden a Searching for Non-randomised Studies. Draft Chapter 3. Cochrane Non-Randomised Studies Methods Group, 26 July 2002. Available: http://www.cochrane.dk/nrsmg (accessed 10.11.07).
  3. K.J. Rothman, S. Greenland, Types of epidemiologic studies, in: K.J. Rothman, S. Greenland (Eds.), Modern Epidemiology, second ed., Lippincott, Raven, 1998, pp. 74e75.
  4. K.J. Rothman, S. Greenland, Matching, in: K.J. Rothman, S. Greenland (Eds.), Modern Epidemiology, second ed., Lippincott, Raven, 1998, pp. 147e161.
  5. E.A. Murphy, The Logic of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University Press, Balti- more, 1976.
  6. D. Clayton, M. Hills, Models for Doseeresponse (Chapter 25). Statistical Models in Epidemiology, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1993, pp. 249e260.
  7. S. Greenland, Introduction to regression modelling (Chapter 21), in: K.J. Rothman, S. Greenland (Eds.), Modern Epidemiology, second ed., Lip- pincott, Raven, 1998, pp. 401e432.
  8. J.J. Schlesselman, Logistic Regression for Case-control Studies (Chapter 8.2). Case-control Studies Design, Conduct, Analysis, Oxford University Press, New York, Oxford, 1982, pp. 235e241.
  9. D. Clayton, M. Hills, Choice and Interpretation of Models (Chapter 27). Sta- tistical Models in Epidemiology, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1993, pp. 271e281.
  10. M.F. Szklo, J. Nieto, Communicating Results of Epidemiologic Studies (Chapter 9). Epidemiology, beyond the Basics, Jones and Bartlett, Sudbury (MA), 2000, pp. 408e430.
  11. S.L. Lohr, Design Effects (Chapter 7.5). Sampling: Design and Analysis, Dux- bury Press, Pacific Grove (CA), 1999.
  12. K.J. Rothman, S. Greenland, Basic methods for sensitivity analysis and external adjustment, in: K.J. Rothman, S. Greenland (Eds.), Modern Epide- miology, second ed., Lippincott, Raven, 1998, pp. 343e357.
  13. K.J. Rothman, S. Greenland, Precision and validity in epidemiologic studies, in: K.J. Rothman, S. Greenland (Eds.), Modern Epidemiology, second ed., Lippincott, Raven, 1998, pp. 120e125.
  14. K.J. Rothman, S. Greenland, Measures of disease frequency, in: K.J. Rothman, S. Greenland (Eds.), Modern Epidemiology, second ed., Lippincott, Raven, 1998, pp. 44e45.
  15. S. Greenland, Applications of stratified analysis methods, in: K.J. Rothman, S. Greenland (Eds.), Modern Epidemiology, second ed., Lippincott, Raven, 1998, pp. 295e297.
  16. K.J. Rothman, Interactions Between Causes. Modern Epidemiology, Little Brown, Boston, 1986, pp. 311e326.
  17. Ann. Intern. Med. Information for authors. Available at: http://www.annals. org/shared/author_info.html. (accessed 10.11.07).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vandenbroucke, J. P., von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Gøtzsche, P. C., Mulrow, C. D., Pocock, S. J., Poole, C., Schlesselman, J. J., & Egger, M.
Affiliations
  • Leiden University Medical Center (NL)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Rigshospitalet (DK)
  • The University of Texas at San Antonio Health Science Center (US)
  • London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • University of Bern (CH)
Corresponding author
Egger, Matthias
Venue
International Journal of Surgery
Published
2014-12
Volume
12
Issue
12
Pages
1500-1524
ISSN
  • 1743-9159 (ISSN-L)
  • 1743-9191
OpenAlex
W4296024375
Cited by
2,969
References
218
Citations by year
2026: 429 · 2025: 420 · 2024: 336 · 2023: 372 · 2022: 328 · 2021: 305 · 2020: 273 · 2019: 165 · 2018: 121 · 2017: 88 · 2016: 81 · 2015: 28 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 4
FWCI
66.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Surgery (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (publishedVersion)
  • SERVAL (Université de Lausanne) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
  • IRIS (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion)
  • Archivio istituzionale della ricerca (Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna) (submittedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Bern
  • University of Bristol
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Methodologies in Health Research and Practice
Keywords
STROBE statement, reporting quality, observational studies, cohort studies, case-control study, cross-sectional study, reporting checklist, flowcharts, critical appraisal, study design reporting

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review