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 accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“This study was conducted and reported according to best practice guidelines in the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology.24”
From Measuring the prevalence and impact of poor menstrual hygiene management: A quantitative survey of schoolgirls in rural Uganda (2016) · cites this paper as [24]
In the citing paper
“This study was conducted and reported according to best practice guidelines in the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology statement [20].”
From Schoolgirls’ experience and appraisal of menstrual absorbents in rural Uganda: a cross-sectional evaluation of reusable sanitary pads (2016) · cites this paper as [20]
Citations
Cites
von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Egger, M., Pocock, S. J., Gøtzsche, P. C., Vandenbroucke, J. P., & Initiative, F. T. S. (2007) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296 · Cited by 23,020
Self-citationVandenbroucke, J. P., von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Gøtzsche, P. C., Mulrow, C. D., Pocock, S. J., Poole, C., Schlesselman, J. J., Egger, M., & Initiative, F. T. S. (2007) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040297 · Cited by 8,613
Self-citationMoher, D., Schulz, K. F., & Altman, D. G. (2001) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(00)04337-3 · Cited by 5,373
Self-citationMoher, D., Cook, D. J., Eastwood, S., Olkin, I., Rennie, D., & Stroup, D. F. (1999) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(99)04149-5 · Cited by 4,826
Vandenbroucke, J. P., Elm, E. V., Altman, D. G., Gøtzsche, P. C., Mulrow, C. D., Pocock, S. J., Poole, C., Schlesselman, J. J., Egger, M., & initiative, F. T. S. (2007) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-147-8-200710160-00010-w1 · Cited by 3,543
Self-citationConsort 2010 statement: extension to cluster randomised trials
Campbell, M. K., Piaggio, G., Elbourne, D. R., Altman, D. G., & for the CONSORT Group (2012) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.e5661 · Cited by 3,510
Self-citationAssessing the quality of controlled clinical trials
Jüni, P., Altman, D. G., & Egger, M. (2001) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7303.42 · Cited by 3,309
Self-citationTowards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD Initiative.
Bossuyt, P. M., Reitsma, J. B., Bruns, D. E., Gatsonis, C. A., Glasziou, P. P., Irwig, L. M., Lijmer, J. G., Moher, D., Rennie, D., de Vet, H. C. W., et al. (2003) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-138-1-200301070-00010 · Cited by 3,219
Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative
Bossuyt, P. M., Reitsma, J. B., Bruns, D. E., Gatsonis, C. A., Glasziou, P. P., Irwig, L. M., Lijmer, J. G., Moher, D., Rennie, D., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7379.41 · Cited by 3,215
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. (2007) · Epidemiology · doi:10.1097/ede.0b013e3181577511 · Cited by 2,779
Self-citationCONSORT statement: extension to cluster randomised trials
Campbell, M. K., Elbourne, D. R., & Altman, D. G. (2004) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7441.702 · Cited by 2,557
Self-citationPiaggio, G., Elbourne, D. R., Pocock, S. J., Evans, S. J. W., Altman, D. G., & CONSORT Group, F. T. (2012) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2012.87802 · Cited by 2,428
Self-citationWhy we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care
Black, N. (1996) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.312.7040.1215 · Cited by 1,598
Better Reporting of Harms in Randomized Trials: An Extension of the CONSORT Statement
Ioannidis, J. P. A., Evans, S. J. W., Gøtzsche, P. C., O'Neill, R. T., Altman, D. G., Schulz, K., Moher, D., & for the CONSORT Group* (2004) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-141-10-200411160-00009 · Cited by 1,593
Self-citationSanderson, S., Tatt, I. D., & Higgins, J. P. (2007) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/dym018 · Cited by 1,531
Reporting of Noninferiority and Equivalence Randomized Trials: An Extension of the CONSORT Statement
Piaggio, G., Elbourne, D. R., Altman, D. G., Pocock, S. J., Evans, S. J. W., & CONSORT Group, F. T. (2006) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.295.10.1152 · Cited by 1,153
Self-citationMeta-analysis Spurious precision? Meta-analysis of observational studies
Egger, M., Schneider, M., & Smith, G. D. (1998) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.316.7125.140 · Cited by 997
Self-citationPlint, A. C., Moher, D., Morrison, A., Schulz, K., Altman, D. G., Hill, C., & Gaboury, I. (2006) · Medical Journal of Australia · doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.2006.tb00557.x · Cited by 872
Self-citationReporting Randomized, Controlled Trials of Herbal Interventions: An Elaborated CONSORT Statement
Gagnier, J. J., Boon, H., Rochon, P., Moher, D., Barnes, J., Bombardier, C., & for the CONSORT Group* (2006) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-144-5-200603070-00013 · Cited by 608
Assessing the quality of research.
Glasziou, P., Vandenbroucke, J., & Chalmers, I. (2004) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7430.39 · Cited by 391
Self-citationQuality of reporting of observational longitudinal research.
Tooth, L. (2005) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/aje/kwi042 · Cited by 363
Value of Flow Diagrams in Reports of Randomized Controlled Trials
Egger, M. (2001) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.285.15.1996 · Cited by 317
Self-citationIssues in the reporting of epidemiological studies: a survey of recent practice.
Pocock, S. J., Collier, T. J., Dandreo, K. J., de Stavola, B. L., Goldman, M. B., Kalish, L. A., Kasten, L. E., & McCormack, V. A. (2004) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.38250.571088.55 · Cited by 313
Self-citationCONSORT Revised—Improving the Reporting of Randomized Trials
Rennie, D. (2001) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.285.15.2006 · Cited by 293
A road map for efficient and reliable human genome epidemiology.
The Human Genome Epidemiology Network and the Network of Investigator Networks, Ioannidis, J. P. A., Gwinn, M., Little, J., Higgins, J. P. T., Bernstein, J. L., Boffetta, P., Bondy, M., Bray, M. S., Brenchley, P. E., et al. (2006) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/ng0106-3 · Cited by 244
Comparison of evidence on harms of medical interventions in randomized and nonrandomized studies
Papanikolaou, P. N. (2006) · Canadian Medical Association Journal · doi:10.1503/cmaj.050873 · Cited by 229
Bartlett, C., Sterne, J., & Egger, M. (2002) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.325.7355.81 · Cited by 222
Self-citationClinical Epidemiological Quality in Molecular Genetic Research
Bogardus, S. T., Concato, J., & Feinstein, A. R. (1999) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.281.20.1919 · Cited by 170
Bias in psychiatric case–control studies: Literature survey
Lee, W., Bindman, J., Ford, T., Glozier, N., Moran, P., Stewart, R., & Hotopf, M. (2007) · British Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.106.027250 · Cited by 92
Moher, D. (2004) · Canadian Medical Association Journal · doi:10.1503/cmaj.1040031 · Cited by 85
Suggestions for Improving the Reporting of Clinical Research: The Role of Narrative
Schriger, D. L. (2005) · Annals of Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2004.09.022 · Cited by 42
Pocock, S., Collier, T., Dandreo, K. J., Stavola, B. L. D., Mb, G., La, K., Le, K., & McCormack, V. (2004) · Cited by 23
Self-citationCONSORT your submissions: an update for authors
Ormerod, A. D. (2001) · British Journal of Dermatology · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2133.2001.04404.x · Cited by 18
CONSORT your submissions: an update for authors
Ormerod, A. D. (2008) · British Journal of Dermatology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.2001.04404.x · Cited by 13
Flagged first, then by citations
1 of the 35 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 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
A review of chronic pain impact on patients, their social environment and the health care system
Duenas, M., Ojeda, B., Salazar, A., Mico, J. A., & Failde, I. (2016) · Journal of Pain Research · doi:10.2147/jpr.s105892 · Cited by 985
Iniciativa STROBE: subsídios para a comunicação de estudos observacionais
Malta, M., Cardoso, L. O., Bastos, F. I., Magnanini, M. M. F., & da Silva, C. M. F. P. (2010) · Revista de Saúde Pública · doi:10.1590/s0034-89102010000300021 · Cited by 1,098
Schoeler, T., Monk, A., Sami, M. B., Klamerus, E., Foglia, E., Brown, R., Camuri, G., Altamura, A. C., Murray, R., & Bhattacharyya, S. (2016) · The Lancet Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/s2215-0366(15)00363-6 · Cited by 322
Schüetz, P., Birkhahn, R., Sherwin, R. L., Jones, A. E., Singer, A. J., Kline, J. A., Runyon, M. S., Self, W. H., Courtney, D. M., Nowak, R. M., et al. (2017) · Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000002321 · Cited by 306
Procalcitonin Levels Predict Bacteremia in Patients With Community-Acquired Pneumonia
Müller, F., Christ‐Crain, M., Bregenzer, T., Krause, M., Zimmerli, W., Müeller, B., & Schüetz, P. (2010) · CHEST Journal · doi:10.1378/chest.09-2920 · Cited by 256
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)
- Venue
- Gaceta Sanitaria
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2008-03
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 144-150
- ISSN
- 0213-9111 (ISSN-L)
- 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
- gold
- doi.org
- 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
