The STROBE guidelines
Open accessAbstract
An observational study is a type of epidemiological study design, which can take the form of a cohort, a case-control, or a cross-sectional study. When presenting observational studies in manuscripts, an author needs to ascertain a clear presentation of the work and provide the reader with appropriate information to enable critical appraisal of the research. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines were created to aid the author in ensuring high-quality presentation of the conducted observational study. The original articles publishing the STROBE guidelines together with their bibliographies were identified and thoroughly reviewed. These guidelines consist of 22 checklist items that the author needs to fulfil before submitting the manuscript to a journal. The STROBE guidelines were created to aid the authors in presenting their work and not to act as a validation tool for the conducted study or as a framework to conduct an observational study on. The authors complying with these guidelines are more likely to succeed in publishing their observational study work in a journal.
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This article is a narrative overview of the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines, intended to help authors present cohort, case–control, and cross-sectional studies clearly enough for critical appraisal. It walks through the 22-item checklist and explains what each section of a manuscript should report.
Key findings
- The STROBE guidelines consist of 22 checklist items; 18 are common to all three observational designs (cohort, case–control, cross-sectional), while 4 items (numbers 6, 12, 14, and 15) vary by study design.
- The guidelines were developed in 2004 through a collaborative initiative of epidemiologists, methodologists, statisticians, researchers, and journal editors.
- The author stresses that STROBE is not a methodological framework for conducting observational studies, nor a quality-evaluation instrument, nor a means of standardizing manuscripts — it is an aid to transparent reporting.
- The guidelines discourage the terms "prospective," "retrospective," "concurrent," and "historical," instead encouraging authors to describe the actual methodology.
Methods
- Design: narrative review/educational overview of the STROBE guidelines.
- Data: the original articles publishing the STROBE guidelines and their bibliographies were identified and thoroughly reviewed; the checklist is reproduced from Vandenbroucke et al.
- Analysis: descriptive, item-by-item explanation of the 22 checklist items grouped by manuscript section (title/abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, other information).
Limitations
- Not stated in the paper: the article reports no formal limitations section and declares no conflicts of interest and no financial support.
- Evident from the text: the review describes no systematic search strategy, inclusion criteria, or appraisal of the source literature, so it functions as an explanatory summary rather than a systematic review.
- Evident from the text: the article presents no empirical data or evaluation of whether compliance with STROBE actually improves reporting quality or publication outcomes, despite asserting that complying authors "are more likely to succeed in publishing."
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
0 of 12 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
- Premisecitation
Adequate reporting of observational study information is of vital importance because it determines whether the established results can be included in systematic reviews later on.
“Such study information is of vital importance in a manuscript since this will determine whether the established results can be included in systemic reviews later on.[34]”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [34]
Not checked in the free run.
- Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 10
- May combine two claims. 4
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationThe STROBE guidelines were developed in 2004 through a collaborative initiative of epidemiologists, methodologists, statisticians, researchers, and journal editors.
“To ascertain high-quality reporting of observational studies, the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines were developed following a collaborative initiative of epidemiologists, methodologists, statisticians, researchers, and journal editors in 2004.[1]”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [1] Vandenbroucke, 2007, PLoS Med
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationThe STROBE guidelines enable the journal's editor, reviewers, and readers to critically appraise the study.
“Furthermore, the STROBE guidelines enable the journal's editor, reviewers, and the readers to critically appraise the study.[1]”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [1] Vandenbroucke, 2007, PLoS Med
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationEighteen of the 22 STROBE checklist items are common to all three observational designs: cohort, cross-sectional, and case-control studies.
“Eighteen items are common to all the three observational designs, that is, cohort, cross-sectional, and case–control studies.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [1] Vandenbroucke, 2007, PLoS Med
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).
InterpretationreasoningHaving a thorough understanding of the STROBE guidelines is becoming a requisite for authors who wish to conduct and publish an observational study.
“Having a thorough understanding of the STROBE guidelines is therefore becoming a requisite for authors who wish to conduct and publish an observational study.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: A substantial number of journals are requesting authors to follow the STROBE guidelines before submitting their observational-study-inspired manuscript.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationThe STROBE guidelines consist of 22 checklist items.
“These guidelines consist of 22 checklist items that the author needs to fulfil before submitting the manuscript to a journal.”
- Also stated in: § The Strobe Checklist · plain
“A total of 22 checklist items contribute to the STROBE guidelines.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [1] Vandenbroucke, 2007, PLoS Med
Not checked in the free run.
- Also stated in: § The Strobe Checklist · plain
Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
PremisecitationThe STROBE guidelines were created to aid authors in ensuring clear, high-quality presentation and reporting of observational studies, including what was planned, done, found, and concluded, and to enable assessment of the study's strengths and weaknesses.
“The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines were created to aid the author in ensuring high-quality presentation of the conducted observational study.”
- Also stated in: § Introduction · plain
“These guidelines were created to aid in the presentation of the conducted observational study to ensure adequate reporting (what was planned, done, found, and concluded) as well as assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the study.[12]”
- Also stated in: § The STROBE Guidelines · plain
“The aim of the STROBE guidelines was to provide a readily available checklist to ensure a clear presentation of what was planned and conducted in an observational study.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [12]
Not checked in the free run.
- Also stated in: § Introduction · plain
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
PremisecitationThe STROBE guidelines were not aimed to bring forward standardization of manuscripts but rather to encourage the production of interesting and narrative articles while maintaining transparency.
“Furthermore, the guidelines were not aimed to bring forward standardization of manuscripts but rather to encourage the production of interesting and narrative articles while maintaining transparency.[5]”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [5] Schriger, 2005, Ann Emerg Med
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationThe remaining four STROBE checklist items (items 6, 12, 14, and 15) have specific variations according to the study design.
“However, the remaining four checklist items (items number 6, 12, 14, and 15) have specific variations according to the study design.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [1] Vandenbroucke, 2007, PLoS Med
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
PremisecitationThe STROBE guidelines were not created to act as a validation tool for the conducted study, an instrument for quality evaluation of observational research, or a methodological framework for conducting an observational study.
“The STROBE guidelines were created to aid the authors in presenting their work and not to act as a validation tool for the conducted study or as a framework to conduct an observational study on.”
- Also stated in: § The STROBE Guidelines · plain
“In no way were these guidelines established to provide a methodological framework for conducting an observational study.[1]”
- Also stated in: § The STROBE Guidelines · plain
“Nor were the guidelines developed as an instrument for quality evaluation of observational research.[2]”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites [1] Vandenbroucke, 2007, PLoS Med
Not checked in the free run.
- cites [2] von, 2007, BMJ
Not checked in the free run.
- Also stated in: § The STROBE Guidelines · plain
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
PremisecitationThe STROBE guidelines do not allow the use of the words 'prospective', 'retrospective', 'concurrent', or 'historical', but rather encourage the researcher to describe the actual methodology.
“The STROBE guidelines do not allow the use of the words “prospective” or “retrospective” or “concurrent” or “historical,” but rather encourage the researcher to describe the actual methodology.[1]”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [1] Vandenbroucke, 2007, PLoS Med
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationReporting the method used to establish the study size along with the confidence intervals considered is essential for the reader to ascertain whether sufficient statistical precision has been attained.
“The method used to establish the study size needs to be reported along with the confidence intervals considered. This is essential for the reader to ascertain whether sufficient statistical precision has been attained in the study.[1]”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [1] Vandenbroucke, 2007, PLoS Med
Not checked in the free run.
The paper relies on this without support.
A substantial number of journals are requesting authors to follow the STROBE guidelines before submitting their observational-study-inspired manuscript.
“A substantial number of journals are requesting authors to follow the STROBE guidelines before submitting their observational-study-inspired manuscript.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Authors complying with the STROBE guidelines are more likely to succeed in publishing their observational study work in a journal.
“The authors complying with these guidelines are more likely to succeed in publishing their observational study work in a journal.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Causality of a particular outcome cannot be established in most study designs, unless a longitudinal cohort study has been conducted.
“Furthermore, researchers have to keep in mind that causality of a particular outcome cannot be established in most study designs, unless a longitudinal cohort study has been conducted.”
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?
The study was reported in compliance with the STROBE criteria.
“This study was reported in compliance with the STROBE criteria [16].”
From Influence of hardiness, mother-child interactions, and social support on parenting stress among North Korean refugee mothers: a cross-sectional study (2022) · cites this paper as [16]
Two authors independently assessed included studies for reporting completeness and quality using STROBE and Newcastle-Ottawa checklists.
“To assess reporting completeness and quality of included studies, two authors (CVD with either EJMM or EB) independently assessed included studies according to Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology [14–16] and the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale [17, 18], respectively.”
From The aetiology and antimicrobial resistance of bacterial maternal infections in Sub-Saharan Africa—a systematic review and meta-analysis (2024) · cites this paper as [16]
Cites
Elm, E. V., Altman, D. G., Egger, M., Pocock, S. J., Gøtzsche, P. C., & Vandenbroucke, J. P. (2007) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.39335.541782.ad · Cited by 10,766 · cited 2× · see citing works
“[1] Nor were the guidelines developed as an instrument for quality evaluation of observational research.[2] Furthermore, the guidelines were not aimed to bring forward standardization of manuscripts but rather to encourage the production of interesting and narrative articles while maintaining transparency.”
BackgroundMethodVandenbroucke, 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 · cited 7× · see citing works
“The STROBE guidelines do not allow the use of the words “prospective” or “retrospective” or “concurrent” or “historical,” but rather encourage the researcher to describe the actual methodology.[1]”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialAssessing 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 · cited 1× · see citing works
“[1,2] Such study information is of vital importance in a manuscript since this will determine whether the established results can be included in systemic reviews later on.[3,4] Furthermore, the STROBE guidelines enable the journal’s editor, reviewers, and the readers to critically appraise the study.”
Backgroundvon Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Egger, M., Pocock, S. J., Gøtzsche, P. C., & Vandenbroucke, J. P. (2007) · Preventive Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2007.08.012 · Cited by 2,698 · see citing works
<i>Meta-analysis</i> 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 · see citing works
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 · cited 1× · see citing works
“[2] Furthermore, the guidelines were not aimed to bring forward standardization of manuscripts but rather to encourage the production of interesting and narrative articles while maintaining transparency.[5]”
BackgroundWASP (Write a Scientific Paper): Understanding research metrics
Cuschieri, S. (2018) · Early Human Development · doi:10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2018.01.015 · Cited by 11 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Citation of published manuscripts is imperative for the enhancement of the researcher’s research metrics and for increasing the prestigious acknowledgement of the researcher and his or her work within the scientific community.[6] The abstract should include a brief summary of the study and present only information fou…”
BackgroundSelf-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
1 of the 8 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Challenges in meta-analyses with observational studies
Metelli, S., & Chaimani, A. (2020) · Evidence-Based Mental Health · doi:10.1136/ebmental-2019-300129 · Cited by 291 · see citing works
“Although guidance on the reporting of observational studies does exist (eg, the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist), 8 following this guidance is not mandatory yet for most medical journals.”
Luchini, C., Veronese, N., Nottegar, A., Shin, J. I., Gentile, G., Granziol, U., Soysal, P., Alexinschi, O., Smith, L., & Solmi, M. (2020) · Pharmaceutical Statistics · doi:10.1002/pst.2068 · Cited by 240 · see citing works
“STROBE provides general reporting recommendations for descriptive observational studies and studies that investigate associations between exposures and health outcomes.(17,18) STROBE addresses the three main types of observational studies: cohort, case–control, and cross-sectional studies.”
BackgroundCacioppo, M., Bouvier, S., Bailly, R., Houx, L., Lempereur, M., Mensah-Gourmel, J., Kandalaft, C., Varengue, R., Chatelin, A., Vagnoni, J., et al. (2020) · Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.rehab.2020.08.001 · Cited by 184 · see citing works
“This study was a cross-sectional study conducted in France with an online survey and following the STROBE guidelines [6].”
Clinical Validation of 5 Direct-to-Consumer Wearable Smart Devices to Detect Atrial Fibrillation
Mannhart, D., Lischer, M., Knecht, S., du Fay de Lavallaz, J., Strebel, I., Serban, T., Vögeli, D., Schaer, B., Osswald, S., Mueller, C., et al. (2023) · JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacep.2022.09.011 · Cited by 175 · see citing works
Hu, Y., Wang, Z., He, H., Pan, L., Tu, J., & Shan, G. (2023) · Ageing Research Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.arr.2023.102165 · Cited by 159 · see citing works
“We designed a table to assess the risk of study bias based on the STROBE checklist (Cuschieri, 2019).”
MethodKhalid, A., Jaffar, M. A., Khan, T., Lail, R. A., Ali, S., Aktaş, G., Waris, A., Javaid, A., Ijaz, N., & Muhammad, N. (2021) · Hematology · doi:10.1080/16078454.2021.1950898 · Cited by 121 · see citing works
“We followed the ‘Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE)’, [22,23] and ‘Standards for Reporting Diagnostic accu-”
MethodLi, Y., Sundquist, K., Zhang, N., Wang, X., Sundquist, J., & Memon, A. A. (2023) · EBioMedicine · doi:10.1016/j.ebiom.2022.104432 · Cited by 122 · see citing works
Is glyphosate toxic to bees? A meta-analytical review
Battisti, L., Potrich, M., Sampaio, A. R., Ghisi, N. D. C., Costa-Maia, F. M., Abati, R., Martinez, C. B. D. R., & Sofia, S. H. (2021) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145397 · Cited by 111 · see citing works
Gómez‐Urquiza, J. L., Albendín‐García, L., Velando‐Soriano, A., Ortega‐Campos, E., Ramírez‐Baena, L., Membrive‐Jiménez, M. J., & Suleiman‐Martos, N. (2020) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph17207672 · Cited by 105 · see citing works
“studies was used [27] and for the level of evidence the Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine recommendations were used [28].”
MethodEssangri, H., Sabir, M., Benkabbou, A., Majbar, M. A., Amrani, L., Ghannam, A., Lekehal, B., Mohsine, R., & Souadka, A. (2021) · The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene · doi:10.4269/ajtmh.20-1302 · Cited by 100 · see citing works
“Our study followed theAmericanAssociation for PublicOpinion Research reporting guidelines for survey studies and the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology directive guidelines for observational studies.(18,19) Study design.”
MethodReal-world data: bridging the gap between clinical trials and practice
Wilson, B. E., & Booth, C. M. (2024) · EClinicalMedicine · doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102915 · Cited by 99 · see citing works
Kortekaas, J. C., Kazemier, B. M., Keulen, J. K. J., Bruinsma, A., Mol, B. W., Vandenbussche, F. P. H. A., van Dillen, J., & de Miranda, E. (2020) · Acta Obstetricia Et Gynecologica Scandinavica · doi:10.1111/aogs.13828 · Cited by 91 · see citing works
A national survey to assess breast cancer awareness among the female university students of Pakistan
Hussain, I., Majeed, A., Masood, I., Ashraf, W., Imran, I., Saeed, H., Rehman, A. U., Hashmi, F. K., Saleem, F., Akbar, M., et al. (2022) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0262030 · Cited by 92 · see citing works
Methodological and Statistical Considerations for Cross-Sectional, Case–Control, and Cohort Studies
Pérez-Guerrero, E. E., Guillén-Medina, M. R., Márquez‐Sandoval, F., Vera-Cruz, J. M., Gallegos‐Arreola, M. P., Rico-Méndez, M. A., Aguilar‐Velázquez, J. A., & Gutiérrez-Hurtado, I. A. (2024) · Journal of Clinical Medicine · doi:10.3390/jcm13144005 · Cited by 99 · see citing works
COVID-19 and Selenium Deficiency: a Systematic Review
Fakhrolmobasheri, M., Mazaheri‐Tehrani, S., Kieliszek, M., Zeinalian, M., Abbasi, M., Karimi, F., & Mozafari, A. M. (2021) · Biological Trace Element Research · doi:10.1007/s12011-021-02997-4 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
“Quality Assessment The STROBE checklist was used for quality assessment [18].”
MethodSkoglund, C., Sundström Poromaa, I., Leksell, D., Ekholm Selling, K., Cars, T., Giacobini, M., Young, S., & Kopp Kallner, H. (2024) · Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry · doi:10.1111/jcpp.13920 · Cited by 77 · see citing works
Association between mental illness and blood pressure variability: a systematic review
Shahimi, N. H., Lim, R., Mat, S., Goh, C., Tan, M. P., & Lim, E. (2022) · BioMedical Engineering OnLine · doi:10.1186/s12938-022-00985-w · Cited by 79 · see citing works
“Quality assessment Risk of bias was assessed using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) criteria [8].”
MethodMarciano, L., Lin, J., Sato, T., Saboor, S., & Viswanath, K. (2024) · SSM - Mental Health · doi:10.1016/j.ssmmh.2024.100331 · Cited by 80 · see citing works
Eden, J., Thorne, A. M., Bodewes, S. B., et al. (2024) · Journal of Hepatology · doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2024.08.030 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Use During Pregnancy and Outcomes in Pregnant Individuals and Newborns
Gougis, P., Hamy, A., Jochum, F., Bihan, K., Carbonnel, M., Salem, J., Dumas, É., Kabirian, R., Grandal, B., Barraud, S., et al. (2024) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.5625 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
Racial Disparities in COVID-19 Outcomes Among Black and White Patients With Cancer
Fu, J. C., Reid, S., French, B. C., Hennessy, C., Hwang, C., Gatson, N. T., Duma, N., Mishra, S., Nguyen, R. H.-T., Hawley, J. E., et al. (2022) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.4304 · Cited by 66 · see citing works
Myomectomy associated blood transfusion risk and morbidity after surgery
Kim, T., Purdy, M. P., Kendall-Rauchfuss, L., et al. (2020) · Fertility and Sterility · doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.02.110 · Cited by 67 · see citing works
Xin, H., Wong, J. Y., Murphy, C., Yeung, A., Ali, S. T., Wu, P., & Cowling, B. J. (2021) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1093/cid/ciab501 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
“The incubation period distribution of COVID-19 has been a critical epidemiological parameter in characterising the transmission dynamics, particularly the role of pre-symptomatic transmission [14] and determination of the quarantine period for persons who might have been exposed to infection [5, 6].”
BackgroundMethodBrigo, E., Rintala, A., Kossi, O., Verwaest, F., Vanhoof, O., Feys, P., & Bonnechère, B. (2022) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph191610325 · Cited by 66 · see citing works
“Due to the variety of publications included, we used the PEDro Scale to evaluate the methodological quality and risk of bias of RCTs [16], the STROBE Checklist for observational studies [17,18] and the CONSORT Checklist for feasibility and pilot studies [19,20].”
MethodRiera, S. A., Marín, S., Serra‐Prat, M., Tomsen, N., Arreola, V., Ortega, O., Walshe, M., & Clavé, P. (2021) · Foods · doi:10.3390/foods10081900 · Cited by 67 · see citing works
“In addition, the quality of prevalence studies was assessed using the “Quality assessment checklist for prevalence studies” [24,25].”
MethodRajendran, L., Claasen, M. P. A. W., McGilvray, I. D., Cattral, M. S., Ghanekar, A., Selzner, N., Burkes, R. L., Winter, E., Gallinger, S., & Sapisochín, G. (2023) · Journal of the American College of Surgeons · doi:10.1097/xcs.0000000000000734 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
Kuchler, T., Günthner, R., Ribeiro, A., Hausinger, R. I., Streese, L., Wöhnl, A., Kesseler, V., Negele, J., Assali, T., Carbajo-Lozoya, J., et al. (2023) · Angiogenesis · doi:10.1007/s10456-023-09885-6 · Cited by 60 · see citing works
“The “All Eyes on PCS” study was designed following the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines [41].”
MethodScorpion species of medical importance in the Brazilian Amazon: a review to identify knowledge gaps
Martins, J. G., Santos, G. C., Procópio, R. E. D. L., Arantes, E. C., & Bordon, K. D. C. F. (2021) · The Journal of venomous animals and toxins including tropical diseases · doi:10.1590/1678-9199-jvatitd-2021-0012 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
“We suggest that researchers become familiar with reporting guidelines such as the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE), which are delineated to investigate the associations between an exposure and a health outcome [166].”
MethodLife's Essential 8 and Depression: A National Cross-Sectional Analysis in US Emerging Adults
You, Y., Zheng, K., Ablitip, A., Wang, D., Chen, C., Liu, Y., Chen, Y., & Ma, X. (2025) · Journal of Adolescent Health · doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2025.03.023 · Cited by 60 · see citing works
Benson, R. A., & Nandhra, S. (2020) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/sla.0000000000004722 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
“The study was performed and is reported in accordance with the STROBE guidelines.(14) Any institution performing vascular procedures was eligible to participate.”
MethodPortmann, L., de Kraker, M. E. A., Fröhlich, G., Thiabaud, A., Roelens, M., Schreiber, P. W., Troillet, N., Iten, A., Widmer, A. F., Harbarth, S., et al. (2023) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.55599 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Vestergaard, S. B., Esbensen, B. A., Midtgaard, J., Glintborg, B., Lau, L., Yilmaz, C., Aadahl, M., Cromhout, P. F., & de Thurah, A. L. (2024) · RMD Open · doi:10.1136/rmdopen-2023-003412 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
Onoya, D., Hendrickson, C. J., Sineke, T., et al. (2021) · Journal of the International AIDS Society · doi:10.1002/jia2.25652 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
“Following STROBE guidelines for observational studies [27], we present baseline descriptive results without statistical testing.”
MethodKarki, K., Singh, D. R., Maharjan, D., K. C., S., Shrestha, S., & Thapa, D. K. (2021) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0246940 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
“The study followed the STROBE statement for a cross-sectional study [28].”
MethodCare burden and associated factors in caregivers of children with cancer
Chaghazardi, M., Janatolmakan, M., Rezaeian, S., & Khatony, A. (2022) · The Italian Journal of Pediatrics/Italian journal of pediatrics · doi:10.1186/s13052-022-01291-w · Cited by 55 · see citing works
“The study was designed and reported based on the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines [23].”
MethodAsbjornsdottir, B., Snorradóttir, H., Andresdottir, E., Fasano, A., Lauth, B., Gudmundsson, L. S., Gottfreðsson, M., Halldorsson, T. I., & Birgisdóttir, B. E. (2020) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu12071982 · Cited by 53 · see citing works
“The STROBE was not applied for rating the studies but rather to investigate the author’s adherence to the guidelines in presenting their work, as the guidelines are not to act as a validation tool for the conducted study [50].”
MethodHsu, H.-Y., Hsu, K.-C., Hou, S.-Y., Wu, C.-L., Hsieh, Y.-W., & Cheng, Y.-D. (2023) · JMIR Medical Education · doi:10.2196/48433 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
“We followed the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) reporting guidelines for observational studies [5].”
MethodVernal Keratoconjunctivitis: A Systematic Review
Bruschi, G., Ghiglioni, D. G., Cozzi, L., Osnaghi, S. G., Viola, F., & Marchisio, P. (2023) · Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology · doi:10.1007/s12016-023-08970-4 · Cited by 53 · see citing works
Merckx, J., Cooke, S., Tal, T. E., Laxer, R. M., Bitnun, A., Morris, S. K., Yeh, E. A., Yea, C., Gill, P., Papenburg, J., et al. (2022) · Canadian Medical Association Journal · doi:10.1503/cmaj.210873 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
Cazé, A. B., Silva, T. C., Bomfim, A. P., de Souza, G. L., Azevedo, A. C. A. C., Brasil, M. Q., Santos, N. R., Khouri, R., Dan, J. M., Bandeira, A. C., et al. (2023) · Journal of Global Health · doi:10.7189/jogh.13.06015 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
“We reported the results following the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) ( Online Supplementary Document ) [14].”
MethodMedical students and ChatGPT: analyzing attitudes, practices, and academic perceptions
Abdelhafiz, A. S., Farghly, M. I., Sultan, E. A., Abouelmagd, M. E., Ashmawy, Y. M., & Elsebaie, E. H. (2025) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-025-06731-9 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
“…survey was conducted in accordance with the guidelines of the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-surveys (CHER-RIES) [18] and complied with the reporting standards for observational studies outlined in the Strengthening of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement [19].”
Observational studies: practical tips for avoiding common statistical pitfalls
Sterrantino, A. F. (2024) · The Lancet Regional Health - Southeast Asia · doi:10.1016/j.lansea.2024.100415 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
“26,27 To minimise incomplete and inadequate reporting, the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network, de fi ned reporting guidelines as: ‘ A checklist, fl ow diagram, or structured text to guide authors in reporting a speci fi c type of research, developed using…”
MethodThe Female Pelvic Floor Fascia Anatomy: A Systematic Search and Review
Roch, M., Gaudreault, N., Cyr, M., Venne, G., Bureau, N. J., & Morin, M. (2021) · Life · doi:10.3390/life11090900 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Tajdar, D., Lühmann, D., Fertmann, R., Steinberg, T., van den Bussche, H., Scherer, M., & Schäfer, I. (2021) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-021-10508-2 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
“This manuscript was drafted following the STROBE guidelines [20].”
MethodLewis, T., Doyle, D. M., Barreto, M., & Jackson, D. (2021) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114143 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
“This review implemented the combined STROBE guidelines for methodologically heterogeneous reviews (Cuschieri, 2019).”
MethodTseng, T., Lee, C., Yen, H., Groot, O. Q., Hou, C., Lin, S.-Y., Bongers, M. E. R., Hu, M., Karhade, A. V., Ko, J.-C., et al. (2021) · Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research · doi:10.1097/corr.0000000000001969 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
“[11, 15, 16] and the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) [12] guidelines.”
BackgroundAntidiabetic Medication and Asthma Attacks
Lee, B., Man, K. K. C., Wong, E., Tan, T., Sheikh, A., & Bloom, C. I. (2024) · JAMA Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2024.5982 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Hanin, A., Denis, J. A., Frazzini, V., et al. (2022) · Journal of Neurology · doi:10.1007/s00415-022-11004-2 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
“The study design and report are in accordance with the STROBE statement [15].”
ResultWinarto, H., Habiburrahman, M., Dorothea, M., et al. (2022) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0266139 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
“All methods and study results were reviewed and reported following the STROBE reporting guidelines (S1 Checklist) for cross-sectional studies [42].”
MethodYedavalli, V. S., Salim, H. A., Musmar, B., et al. (2024) · Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery · doi:10.1136/jnis-2024-021879 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
“22 23”
Parra, W. A. V., & Moscoso-Loaiza, L. (2024) · Experimental Gerontology · doi:10.1016/j.exger.2024.112640 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
Donnelly, K. Z., Baker, K. A., Pierce, R., Ivany, A. S., Barr, P. J., & BRUCE, M. L. (2019) · Disability and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1080/09638288.2019.1672109 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
Gut mycobiome dysbiosis after sepsis and trauma
Park, G., Munley, J. A., Kelly, L. S., Kannan, K. B., Mankowski, R. T., Sharma, A. K., Upchurch, G. R., Casadesús, G., Chakrabarty, P., Wallet, S. M., et al. (2024) · Critical Care · doi:10.1186/s13054-023-04780-4 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
“This study’s reporting adheres to the guidelines outlined in the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines [22].”
MethodEspaña‐Irla, G., Gomes‐Osman, J., Cattaneo, G., Albu, S., Cabello‐Toscano, M. R., Sánchez, J. S., Redondo‐Camós, M., Delgado‐Gallén, S., Alviarez‐Schulze, V., Pachón‐García, C., et al. (2021) · Journal of the American Heart Association · doi:10.1161/jaha.120.020688 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
Salim, H. A., Yedavalli, V. S., Musmar, B., et al. (2024) · Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery & Psychiatry · doi:10.1136/jnnp-2024-333669 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
van Dam, P. M. E. L., Zelis, N., van Kuijk, S. M. J., Linkens, A. E. M. J. H., Brüggemann, R. A. G., Spaetgens, B., van der Horst, I. C. C., & Stassen, P. M. (2021) · Annals of Medicine · doi:10.1080/07853890.2021.1891453 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
“This study was conducted and reported in line with the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines [19].”
MethodMarcheschi, E., Vogel, N., Larsson, A., Perander, S., & Koglin, T. (2022) · Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives · doi:10.1016/j.trip.2022.100585 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
“A cross sectional study design was developed following the STROBE guidelines to investigate residents ’ perceptions of car-free street experiments across four different case studies located in two cities in Sweden, respectively, Malm ¨ o and Gothenburg (Cuschieri, 2019).”
MethodLasagna, A., Agustoni, F., Percivalle, E., et al. (2021) · ESMO Open · doi:10.1016/j.esmoop.2021.100272 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
“The study was conducted according to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement for reporting observational studies.(14) Subjects were monitored during the overall period of vaccination at baseline (before vaccination; T0), before the second administration (T1) and 21 d…”
Reporting guidelines for precision medicine research of clinical relevance: the BePRECISE checklist
Lim, S. S., Semnani‐Azad, Z., Morieri, M. L., Ng, A., Ahmad, A., Fitipaldi, H., Boyle, J. A., Collin, C., Dennis, J., Langenberg, C., et al. (2024) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-024-03033-3 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
“The BePRECISE guidelines are designed to be used together with existing study-specific checklists such as CONSORT 17 , STROBE 18 and STORMS (Strengthening the Organization and Reporting of Micro-biome Studies) 21 .”
InfluentialMari, E., Lausi, G., Fraschetti, A., Pizzo, A., Baldi, M., Quaglieri, A., Burrai, J., Barchielli, B., Avallone, F., & Giannini, A. M. (2021) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su13094850 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
Drancourt, N., Osta, N. E., Decerle, N., & Hennèquin, M. (2022) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph192013618 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
Role of Salivary Biomarkers in Diagnosis and Detection of Dental Caries: A Systematic Review
Alamoudi, A. A., Alamoudi, R., Gazzaz, Y., & Alqahtani, A. M. (2022) · Diagnostics · doi:10.3390/diagnostics12123080 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
“The STROBE (STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology) [14] checklist was used to assess the selected articles’ bias risk.”
MethodAmer, S. A., Al‐Zahrani, A., Imam, E. A., Ishteiwy, E. M., Djelleb, I. F., Abdullh, L. R., Ballaj, D., Amer, Y. A., El-Sokkary, R. H., Elshabrawy, A. M., et al. (2024) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-54886-0 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Yedavalli, V. S., Salim, H. A., Musmar, B., et al. (2024) · International Journal of Stroke · doi:10.1177/17474930241270524 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
“Omics” and Postmortem Interval Estimation: A Systematic Review
Secco, L., Palumbi, S., Padalino, P., et al. (2025) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms26031034 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
“[2,3,17,20–22, 30, 34,35,41–43 ,45 Studies concerning only humans were evaluated using the STROBE checklist [52].”
Prieto-González, P., Šutvajová, M., Lesnakova, A., Bartík, P., Buľáková, K., & Friediger, T. (2021) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare9070860 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
Merolli, M., Gray, K. M., Choo, D., Lawford, B. J., & Hinman, R. S. (2022) · Musculoskeletal Care · doi:10.1002/msc.1627 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
“This study is reported in line with both the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E‐Surveys (CHERRIES; Eysenbach, 2004) and Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines (Cuschieri, 2019).”
Mohanty, P., Patnaik, L., Nayak, G., & Dutta, A. (2022) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-022-13949-5 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
“We ensure that items of Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline were reported wherever applicable [44].”
MethodSalim, H. A., Lakhani, D. A., Balar, A., Musmar, B., Adeeb, N., Hoseinyazdi, M., Luna, L., Deng, F. M., Hyson, N. Z., Mei, J. Y., et al. (2024) · Journal of Neurology · doi:10.1007/s00415-024-12279-3 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
“This study adheres to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist guidelines for observational studies [17, 18].”
Caruso, G., Corradi, N., Caldaria, A., et al. (2022) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-021-04252-1 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Halat, D. H., Hallit, S. R., Younes, S., Alfikany, M., Khaled, S., Krayem, M., Khatib, S. E., & Rahal, M. K. (2023) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-023-16184-8 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
“The conduct and reporting of this study follow the statement of the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines [58].”
MethodSubclinical and clinical acute kidney injury share similar urinary peptide signatures and prognosis
Boutin, L., Latosińska, A., Mischak, H., Deniau, B., Asakage, A., Legrand, M. M., Gayat, É., Mebazaa, A., Chadjichristos, C. E., & Dépret, F. (2023) · Intensive Care Medicine · doi:10.1007/s00134-023-07198-2 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
“Statistical analysis and bioinformatics This report adheres to the Strengthening of the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement guidelines [18].”
MethodFawson, S., Moon, Z., Novogrudsky, K., Moxham, F., Forster, K., Tribe, I., Moss-Morris, R., Johnson, C., & Hughes, L. D. (2024) · Health Psychology Review · doi:10.1080/17437199.2023.2261518 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
“Researchers publishing studies in line with guidelines such as STROBE (Cuschieri, 2019) would allow for more transparent reporting and a clearer assessment of risk of bias.”
Prencipe, L., Houweling, T. A. J., van Lenthe, F. J., Kajula, L. J., & Palermo, T. (2023) · The Lancet Planetary Health · doi:10.1016/s2542-5196(23)00234-6 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Aggarwal, N. K., Consavage, K. E., Dhanuka, I., Clement, K. W., Shahbazian, K., & Bouey, J. H. (2020) · LGBT Health · doi:10.1089/lgbt.2019.0243 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
Gatto, N. M., Ogata, P., & Lytle, B. (2021) · Cancers · doi:10.3390/cancers13174477 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Correlates of protection for booster doses of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine BNT162b2
Hertz, T., Levy, S., Ostrovsky, D. A., Oppenheimer, H., Zismanov, S., Kuzmina, A., Friedman, L. M., Trifkovic, S., Brice, D. C., Chun-Yang, L., et al. (2023) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-023-39816-4 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Kaleeny, J. D., & Janis, J. E. (2024) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare12131333 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
“To ensure the quality and transparency of our systematic review and meta-analysis, we employed the combined cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology for Cross-Sectional Study (STROBE) checklist [17]. required.”
MethodValera-Calero, J., Sánchez-Jorge, S., Buffet-García, J., Varol, U., Gallego-Sendarrubias, G. M., & Álvarez-González, J. (2021) · Journal of Clinical Medicine · doi:10.3390/jcm10132895 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Useche, S. A., Alonso, F., Cendales, B., Montoro, L. V., & Llamazares, F. J. (2021) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-021-11575-1 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
Vestel, C. D., Hertogh, W. D., Rompaey, V. V., & Vereeck, L. (2022) · Frontiers in Neurology · doi:10.3389/fneur.2022.880714 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
“The study report is drafted conform the “Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE)” guidelines for cross-sectional studies (16).”
MethodParanhos, A. C. M., Dias, Á. R. N., da Silva, L. C. M., Koury, G. V. H., de Sousa, E. D. J. S., Cerasi, A. J., Souza, G. D. S., Quaresma, J. A. S., & Falcão, L. F. M. (2022) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.30637 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Loomans-Kropp, H. A., & Umar, A. (2023) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.10002 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Immune‐Related Disorders Associated With Ménière's Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis
Lopez-Escamez, J. A., Vela, J., & Frejo, L. (2023) · Otolaryngology · doi:10.1002/ohn.386 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Galli, F., Bindo, F., Motos, A., Fernández‐Barat, L., Barbeta, E., Gabarrús, A., Ceccato, A., Bermejo-Martín, J. F., Ferrer, R., Riera, J., et al. (2023) · Intensive Care Medicine · doi:10.1007/s00134-023-07161-1 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
“We reported results in accordance with the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines [19].”
ResultValidity of Material Related to the Anterior Cruciate Ligament on TikTok
D’Ambrosi, R., & Hewett, T. E. (2024) · Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine · doi:10.1177/23259671241228543 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Melkemichel, M., Bringman, S., Nilsson, H., et al. (2020) · British journal of surgery · doi:10.1002/bjs.11755 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Mattuizzi, A., Sauvestre, F., André, G., et al. (2020) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-020-69191-9 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Beltrame, A., Salguero, P., Rossi, E., et al. (2022) · Frontiers in Immunology · doi:10.3389/fimmu.2022.834851 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
“82 Estradiol, pg/mL 68 (39-87) 21-649 20 (14-35) <10-28 29 (22-35) 11-44 28 (21-38.”
MethodSalim, H. A., Yedavalli, V. S., Musmar, B., et al. (2024) · Journal of Stroke · doi:10.5853/jos.2024.01389 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
“15,16”
Gómez-Rodríguez, R., Díaz-Pulido, B., Gutiérrez-Ortega, C., et al. (2020) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph17020653 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
“The study reporting followed the “Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology” (STROBE) guidelines [18].”
MethodSancho, E., Hanslin, K., Hultström, M., Larsson, A. O., Frithiof, R., & Lipcsey, M. (2021) · Cytokine · doi:10.1016/j.cyto.2021.155727 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Mahittikorn, A., Mala, W., Srisuphanunt, M., et al. (2022) · Journal of Travel Medicine · doi:10.1093/jtm/taac053 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Domínguez‐Navarro, F., Casaña, J., Dominguez, B. P., Ricart-Luna, B., Cotolí-Suárez, P., & Calatayud, J. (2023) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-31178-7 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
“The research was developed and reported according to the recommendations of STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) 21 .”
Drug-Related Problems and Polypharmacy in Nursing Home Residents: A Cross-Sectional Study
Díez, R., Cadenas, R., Susperregui, J., et al. (2022) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph19074313 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
Zhang, M., Li, Q., Zhang, D., Tao, M., Han, K., Chi, C., Zhang, Z., Tao, X., & Liu, H. (2023) · BMC Psychiatry · doi:10.1186/s12888-023-04556-8 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Salim, H. A., Musmar, B., Adeeb, N., Yedavalli, V. S., Lakhani, D. A., Grewal, S. S., Naamani, K. E., Henninger, N., Sundararajan, S. H., Kühn, A. L., et al. (2024) · European Stroke Journal · doi:10.1177/23969873241249295 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
“27 The data collection period spanned from September 2017 to July 2023.”
The Determinants of Consanguineous Marriages among the Arab Population: A Systematic Review
Goundali, K. E., Chebabe, M., Laamırı, F. Z., & Hilali, A. (2022) · Iranian Journal of Public Health · doi:10.18502/ijph.v51i2.8679 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
de Assis, G. L. C., Mota, A. N. B., Cesar, V. F., et al. (2021) · Revista Brasileira de Enfermagem · doi:10.1590/0034-7167-2019-0663 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
“The methodological structure followed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations(19).”
MethodLo, Z. J., Tan, E. M. L., Chandrasekar, S., Ooi, D. G. S., Liew, H., Ang, G. Y., Yong, E., Hong, Q., Chew, T., Farhan, M. F. M., et al. (2022) · International Wound Journal · doi:10.1111/iwj.14016 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
- Authors
- Cuschieri, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Malta (MT)
- Corresponding author
- Cuschieri, Sarah
- ORCID
- Cuschieri, Sarah
- Venue
- Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia
- Published
- 2019
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 31
- ISSN
- 0975-3125 (ISSN-L)
- 1658-354X
- PMC
- PMC6398292
- OpenAlex
- W2915365125
- Semantic Scholar
- 86b49d808e17f22c01f936fc2b4c6e125c94e84d
- Cited by
- 4,331
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1091 · 2025: 1137 · 2024: 944 · 2023: 580 · 2022: 335 · 2021: 181 · 2020: 57 · 2019: 4
- FWCI
- 96.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- other-oa
- Locations
- Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- OAR@UM (University of Malta) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- 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 › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Keywords
- STROBE guidelines, reporting quality, observational studies, manuscript preparation, critical appraisal, reporting checklist, scientific publications
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.
Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-09.
Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-09.
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
