The reporting of observational studies: Analysis using the STROBE statement;Comunicación de los resultados de lainvestigación observacional: Análisis mediante laguía STROBE

Revista Espanola de Salud Publica

Volumn 85, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 583-591

  Llorca, Jordi Galera ^a   Grillo, Raquel Lahoz ^a   Loscertales, Francesc Roig ^b  

^a Walgreens Health Services   (Spain)

^b Medical Information and Communication   (Spain)

Author keywords

Evidence based medicine; Guidelines as topic; Observational studies; Publications; Scientific communication and diffusion

Indexed keywords

EID: 84860285649     PISSN: 11355727     EISSN: 16969820     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1590/s1135-57272011000600007     Document Type: Review

References (20)

1. Altman DJ, Moher D. Elaboración de directrices para la publicación de investigación biomédica: proceso y fundamento crítico. Med Clin (Barc). 2005;125(Suppl 1):8-13
2. Ribera JM, Cardellach F, Selva A. Procesos de revisión y de edición de Medicina Clínica.Med Clin (Barc). 2005;125(Suppl 1):3-7 (Pubitemid 47242736)
3. Altman DG, Schultz KF, Moher D, Egger M, Davidoff F, Elbourne D et al. The revised Consort statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann intern Med. 2001;134:663-94 (Pubitemid 32322245)
4. Pocock SJ, Collier TJ, Dandreo KJ, De Stavola BL, Goldman MB, Kalish LAT et al. Issues in the reporting of epidemiological studies: a survey of recent practice. BMJ. 2004; 329:883
5. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwing LM, et al. The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Clin Chem. 2003;49:7-18 (Pubitemid 36078547)
6. Des Jarlais DC, Lyles C, Crepaz N, and the TREND Group. Improving the reporting quality of nonrandomized evaluations of behavioral and public health interventions: the Trend statement. Am J Public Health. 2004;94:361-6 (Pubitemid 38269486)
7. MoherD, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF, et al. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUORUM statement. Lancet. 199;354:1896-90
8. Von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP et al. Declaración de la Iniciativa STROBE (Stenthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology): directrices para la comunicación de estudios observacionales. Gac Sanit 2008; 22(2):144-50.
9. Vandenbroucke JP, Von Elm E, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Mulrow CD, Pocock SJ et al. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. Gac Sanit 2009; 23(2):158.
10. García del Pozo J, De Abajo FJ. Estudios postautorización en España. Situación normativa. Boletín ICB Digital 2004; 24:1-13 [citado 7 de diciembre 2010]. http://www.icbdigital.org/icbdigital/pdf/ articulo/articulo24.pdf
11. Agencia Española del Medicamento. Circular 15/2002, de 10 de octubre. Procedimientos de comunicación en material de Farmacovigilancia de medicamentos de uso humano entre la Industria Farmacéutica y el Sistema Español de Farmacovigilancia de medicamentos de uso humano.
12. García del Pozo J Bernard C, Molina Figueras X. Estudios postautorización en España: marco legal, problemática y posibles soluciones. Med Clin (Barc) 2009; 133(17):676-81.
13. Lagan S, Schimitt J, Coenraads PJ, Svensson A, von Elm E y Williams H. The reporting of observational research studies in dermatology journals: a literature- based study.Arch Dermatol 2010; 146(5):534-41.
14. Papathanasiou AA, Zintzaras E.Assessing the quality of reporting of observational studies in cancer.Ann Epidemiol 2010; 20(1):67-73.
15. Groenwold RH, Van Deursen AM, Hoes AW, Hak E. Poor quality of reporting confounding bias in observational intervention studies: a systematic review.Ann Epidemiol 2008; 18(10):746-51.
16. Moher D, Jones A, Lepage L. CONSORT GROUP (Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials). Use of the consort statement and quality of reports of randomized trials: Acomparative before-and-after evaluation. JAMA 2001; 285: 1992-5. (Pubitemid 32366952)
17. Wen J, Ren Y, Wang L, Li Y, Liu Y, Zhou M et al. The reporting quality of meta- analyses improves: a random sampling study. J Clin Epidemiol 2008; 61(8):770-5.
18. Gómez Sáez N, Hernández-Aguado I, Lumbreras B. Estudio observacional: evaluación de la calidad metodológica de la investigación diagnóstica en España tras la publicación de la guía Stard. Med Clin (Barc) 2009; 133(8):302-10.
19. Erb HN. Changing expectations: do journals drive methodological changes? Should they?. Prev Vet Med 2010; 97(3-4):165-74.
20. Plint AC, Moher D, Morrison A, Schulz K, Altman DG, Hill C et al. Does the Consort checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review. Med J Aust 2006; 185(5):263-7. (Pubitemid 44382877)