Cited by 55Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyAcademic Publishing and Open Access

Using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement to assess reporting of observational trials in hand surgery

Open access
Sorensen, Amelia A., Wojahn, Robert D., Manske, Mary Claire, Calfee, Ryan P.·2013·The Journal of 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 the Journal of Hand Surgery American was designed to sample 2 6-month periods of publication (March 2005 to August 2005 and June 2011 to 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 the use of a power analysis (0%/17%). Eighty-six percent (44/51) of items were more frequently satisfied in 2011 articles than in 2005 publications. Absolute increases in compliance rates of 40% or greater were noted in 10 items (20%) with no worsening in compliance for an individual item over 6%.Conclusions The overall quality of the reporting of observational trials in the Journal of Hand Surgery American improved from 2005 to 2011. Current observational trials in hand surgery could still benefit from increased reporting of methodological details including the use of power analyses, the handling of missing data, and consideration of potential bias.Level of evidence Diagnostic III.

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.jhsa.2013.05.008

Cites

70 of 70 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sorensen, A. A., Wojahn, R. D., Manske, M. C., & Calfee, R. P.
Affiliations
Washington University in St. Louis (US)
Venue
The Journal of Hand Surgery
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-08
Volume
38
Issue
8
Pages
1584-1589.e2
ISSN
0363-5023 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2045887661
Cited by
55
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 6
FWCI
7.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Journal Of Hand Surgery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR000448)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
Keywords
STROBE statement, reporting quality, observational studies, hand surgery, reporting guidelines compliance, power analysis, missing data, bias, methodological quality
MeSH terms
Cross-Sectional Studies, Hand, Humans, Publishing, Quality Control, United States, Epidemiologic Research Design, Guidelines as Topic, Observation, Observational Studies as Topic

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