The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 12 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
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.
Overview
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
Verification
Claims the paper makes
0 of 12 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
In the paper
“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]”
§ The STROBE guidelines > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [34]
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
- Probably not a substantial claim. 10
- It may state two separate claims as one. 4
In the paper
“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]”
§ The STROBE guidelines > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [1] Vandenbroucke, 2007, PLoS Med
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Furthermore, the STROBE guidelines enable the journal's editor, reviewers, and the readers to critically appraise the study.[1]”
§ The STROBE guidelines > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [1] Vandenbroucke, 2007, PLoS Med
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Eighteen items are common to all the three observational designs, that is, cohort, cross-sectional, and case–control studies.”
§ The STROBE guidelines > The Strobe Checklist
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [1] Vandenbroucke, 2007, PLoS Med
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Having a thorough understanding of the STROBE guidelines is therefore becoming a requisite for authors who wish to conduct and publish an observational study.”
§ The STROBE guidelines > Conclusion
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Rests on an assumption: A substantial number of journals are requesting authors to follow the STROBE guidelines before submitting their observational-study-inspired manuscript.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The STROBE guidelines > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [1] Vandenbroucke, 2007, PLoS Med
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Also stated in: § The Strobe Checklist · plain
In the paper
“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.”
§ The STROBE guidelines > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [12]
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Introduction · plain
In the paper
“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]”
§ The STROBE guidelines > The STROBE Guidelines
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [5] Schriger, 2005, Ann Emerg Med
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“However, the remaining four checklist items (items number 6, 12, 14, and 15) have specific variations according to the study design.”
§ The STROBE guidelines > The Strobe Checklist
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [1] Vandenbroucke, 2007, PLoS Med
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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]”
§ The STROBE guidelines > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [1] Vandenbroucke, 2007, PLoS Med
- Not checked yetcites [2] von, 2007, BMJ
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § The STROBE Guidelines · plain
In the paper
“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]”
§ The STROBE guidelines > Items 4–12: Methods
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [1] Vandenbroucke, 2007, PLoS Med
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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]”
§ The STROBE guidelines > Items 4–12: Methods
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [1] Vandenbroucke, 2007, PLoS Med
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
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 cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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]
Citations
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×
“[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×
“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×
“[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
Meta-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
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×
“[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×
“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
“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 249
“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 194
“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
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
“We designed a table to assess the risk of study bias based on the STROBE checklist (Cuschieri, 2019).”
Method
Metadata
- 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 › Library and Information Sciences › 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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
