CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 417Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyAcademic Publishing and Open Access

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Declaración de la Iniciativa STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology): directrices para la comunicación de estudios observacionales

Open access
Von Elm, Erik, Altman, Douglas G., Egger, Matthias, Pocock, Stuart J., Gøtzsche, Peter C., Vandenbroucke, Jan P.·2008·Gaceta Sanitaria
DOI 10.1157/13119325
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Gran parte de la investigación biomédica es de tipo observacional, pero la información difundida sobre esas investigaciones es a menudo insuficiente, lo que dificulta la evaluación de sus puntos fuertes y débiles para la generalización de sus conclusiones En el marco de la iniciativa STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology), se formularon recomendaciones sobre lo que debería contener una notificación precisa de un estudio observacional. Decidimos limitar el alcance de las recomendaciones a tres grandes modalidades de estudio: de cohortes, de casos y controles, y transversales. En septiembre de 2004 organizamos un taller de 2 días con metodólogos, investigadores y editores de revistas para elaborar una lista de verificación de distintos puntos. Esta lista fue revisada posteriormente en varias reuniones del grupo de coordinación y en discusiones mantenidas por correo electrónico con los principales participantes en STROBE, teniendo en cuenta la evidencia empírica y diversas consideraciones metodológicas. El taller y el posterior proceso iterativo de consulta y revisión desembocaron en una lista de verificación de 22 puntos (la declaración STROBE) que guardan relación con el título, el resumen, la introducción y las secciones de métodos, resultados y discusión de los artículos. Dieciocho puntos son comunes a las 3 modalidades de estudio, y 4 se refieren específicamente a los estudios de cohortes, de casos y controles o transversales. Se ha publicado separadamente un documento de explicación y elaboración al que puede accederse libremente en los sitios web de PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine y Epidemiology. Esperamos que la declaración STROBE contribuya a mejorar la calidad de la publicación de los estudios observacionales. 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 che-cklist 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.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1157/13119325

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 35 references

1 of the 35 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Guidelines for documentation of epidemiologic studies: epidemiology work group, 1981, of the interagency regulatory liaison group, Am J Epidemiol, 114, 609

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 401–416 of 416

Related

See all

Metadata

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)
ORCID
Venue
Gaceta Sanitaria
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-03
Volume
22
Issue
2
Pages
144-150
ISSN
0213-9111 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1157/13119325
OpenAlex
W2110172624
Semantic Scholar
14c7f5f5d55d16f536fc85b3a7a74244aaedc49a
Cited by
417
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 43 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 48 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 33 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
FWCI
10.89
Type
journal article
Language
es
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Gaceta Sanitaria (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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 › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Publishing and Open Access
Keywords
STROBE, reporting guidelines, observational studies, cohort studies, case-control study, cross-sectional study, checklists, research quality, generalizability, confounding, confounding adjustment, selection bias, attrition, loss to follow-up, misclassification, measurement error, confounding by indication
MeSH terms
Cross-Sectional Studies, Epidemiology, Publishing, Cohort Studies, Case-Control Studies

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