Cited by 21,320Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyMethodologies in Health Research and Practice

The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.

Open access
von Elm, Erik, Altman, Douglas G, Egger, Matthias, Pocock, Stuart J, Gøtzsche, Peter C, Vandenbroucke, Jan P·2007·The Lancet

Abstract

Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalisability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September, 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles.18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies.A detailed explanation and elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the websites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies

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/s0140-6736(07)61602-x

Cites

34 of 34 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
von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Egger, M., Pocock, S. J., Gøtzsche, P. C., & Vandenbroucke, J. P.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • University of Bern (CH)
  • University of London (GB)
  • Cochrane (DK)
  • Leiden University Medical Center (NL)
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2007-10
Volume
370
Issue
9596
Pages
1453-1457
ISSN
  • 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
  • 0140-6736
OpenAlex
W2275737843
Cited by
21,320
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 5336 · 2025: 3610 · 2024: 2953 · 2023: 1928 · 2022: 1503 · 2021: 1392 · 2020: 1065 · 2019: 731 · 2018: 566 · 2017: 498 · 2016: 419 · 2015: 337 · 2014: 270 · 2013: 198 · 2012: 167
FWCI
71.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
European Science Foundation
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 guidelines, observational studies, cohort studies, case-control study, cross-sectional study, reporting quality, checklists, study design reporting
MeSH terms
Cross-Sectional Studies, Publishing, Cohort Studies, Epidemiologic Research Design, Case-Control Studies, Observation

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