Quality of reporting and study design of CKD cohort studies assessing mortality in the elderly before and after STROBE: A systematic review

PLoS ONE

Volumn 11, Issue 5, 2016, Pages

  Rao, Anirudh ^a,b,c   Brück, Katharina ^d   Methven, Shona ^a,b,c   Evans, Rebecca ^a   Stel, Vianda S ^d   Jager, Kitty J ^d   Hooft, Lotty ^e   Ben Shlomo, Yoav ^a,c   Caskey, Fergus ^a,b,c  

^a UK RENAL REGISTRY   (United Kingdom)

^b SOUTHMEAD HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^e UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CHRONIC KIDNEY DISEASE; COHORT ANALYSIS; DISEASE ASSOCIATION; EMBASE; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; MEDLINE; METHODOLOGY; MORTALITY; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; PUBLICATION; STUDY DESIGN; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; AGED; CHRONIC KIDNEY FAILURE; META ANALYSIS; OBSERVER VARIATION; RESEARCH; STATISTICAL MODEL;

AGED; COHORT STUDIES; HUMANS; LINEAR MODELS; OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES AS TOPIC; OBSERVER VARIATION; RENAL INSUFFICIENCY, CHRONIC; RESEARCH DESIGN; RESEARCH REPORT;

EID: 84969791845     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0155078     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Mangione F, Dal Canton A. Chronic kidney disease epidemic: myth and reality. Intern Emerg Med. 2011; 6(1):69-76. doi: 10.1007/s11739-011-0686-4
2. Jha V, Garcia-Garcia G, Iseki K, Li Z, Naicker S, Plattner B, et al. Chronic kidney disease: global dimension and perspectives. The Lancet. 382(9888):260-72. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60687-X
3. Ahmed Abdelhafiz SA, Flint K, El Nahas AM. Is Chronic Kidney Disease in Older People a New Geriatric Giant? Aging Health. 2011; 7(5):749-62.
4. El Nahas AM, Bello AK. Chronic kidney disease: the global challenge. The Lancet. 365(9456):331-40. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)17789-7
5. Kovesdy CP, Kalantar-Zadeh K. Observational Studies Versus Randomized Controlled Trials: Avenues to Causal Inference in Nephrology. Advances in Chronic Kidney Disease. 19(1):11-8. doi: 10.1053/j.ackd.2011.09.004 PMID: 22364796
6. Novak JE, Inrig JK, Patel UD, Califf RM, Szczech LA. Negative trials in nephrology: what can we learn? Kidney Int. 2008; 74(9):1121-7. doi: 10.1038/ki.2008.286 PMID: 18563051
7. Jager KJ, Stel VS, Wanner C, Zoccali C, Dekker FW. The valuable contribution of observational studies to nephrology. Kidney Int. 2007; 72(6):671-5. http://www.nature.com/ki/journal/v72/n6/suppinfo/5002397s1.html. PMID: 17597701
8. Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI. Randomized, Controlled Trials, Observational Studies, and the Hierarchy of Research Designs. New England Journal of Medicine. 2000; 342(25):1887-92. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200006223422507 PMID: 10861325.
9. Thadhani R, Tonelli M. Cohort Studies: Marching Forward. Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. 2006; 1(5):1117-23. doi: 10.2215/cjn.00080106 PMID: 17699334
10. Benson K, Hartz AJ. A Comparison of Observational Studies and Randomized, Controlled Trials. New England Journal of Medicine. 2000; 342(25):1878-86. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200006223422506 PMID: 10861324.
11. Johnston SC, Rootenberg JD, Katrak S, Smith WS, Elkins JS. Effect of a US National Institutes of Health programme of clinical trials on public health and costs. The Lancet. 367(9519):1319-27. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68578-4
12. Tooth L, Ware R, Bain C, Purdie DM, Dobson A. Quality of Reporting of Observational Longitudinal Research. American Journal of Epidemiology. 2005; 161(3):280-8. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwi042 PMID: 15671260
13. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. The Lancet. 370(9596):1453-7. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(07)61602-x
14. Nijsten T, Spuls P, Stern RS. Strobe: A beacon for observational studies. Archives of Dermatology. 2008; 144(9):1200-4. doi: 10.1001/archderm.144.9.1200 PMID: 18794467
15. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. International Journal of Surgery. 12(12):1495-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.07.013 PMID: 25046131
16. da Costa BR, Cevallos M, Altman DG, Rutjes AWS, Egger M. Uses and misuses of the STROBE statement: bibliographic study. BMJ Open. 2011; 1(1). doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2010-000048
17. Carlson MDA, Morrison RS. Study Design, Precision, and Validity in Observational Studies. Journal of Palliative Medicine. 2009; 12(1):77-82. doi: 10.1089/jpm.2008.9690 PMC2920077. PMID: 19284267
18. Shamliyan T, Kane RL, Dickinson S. A systematic review of tools used to assess the quality of observational studies that examine incidence or prevalence and risk factors for diseases. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2010; 63(10):1061-70. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.014 PMID: 20728045
19. Jager KJ, Ocak G, Drechsler C, Caskey FJ, Evans M, Postorino M, et al. The EQUAL study: a European study in chronic kidney disease stage 4 patients. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation. 2012. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfs277
20. National Kidney Foundation. K/DOQI Clinical practice guidelines for chronic kidney disease: evaluation, classification and stratification. American Journal of Kidney Diseases. 2002; 39(Suppl 2):S1-S246.
21. Langan S, Schmitt J, Coenraads P, Svensson A, von Elm E, Williams H, et al. The reporting of observational research studies in dermatology journals: A literature-based study. Archives of Dermatology. 2010; 146(5):534-41. doi: 10.1001/archdermatol.2010.87 PMID: 20479302
22. Wells GA, Shea B, O'Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality if nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Available: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical-epidemiology/oxford.htm. Accessed July 28, 2015.
23. Higgins JPT, Green S (Eds): Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 [Accessed March 2011]. Available: http://handbook.cochrane.org/chapter-13/13-5-2-3-tools-for-assessing-methodological-quality-or-risk-of.htm. Accessed July 28, 2015.
24. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) checklist for cohort studies. http://www.sign.ac.uk/methodology/checklists.html. Accessed July 28, 2015. Available: http://www.sign.ac.uk/methodology/checklists.html.
25. CASP UK. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist for cohort studies. http://www.caspuk.net/#!casp-tools-checklists/c18f8. Accessed July 28, 2015. Available: http://www.casp-uk.net/#!casp-tools-checklists/c18f8.
26. Sanderson S, Tatt ID, Higgins JP. Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography. International Journal of Epidemiology. 2007; 36(3):666-76. doi: 10.1093/ije/dym018 PMID: 17470488
27. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B (Methodological). 1995; 57(1):289-300.
28. Wagner AK, Soumerai SB, Zhang F, Ross-Degnan D. Segmented regression analysis of interrupted time series studies in medication use research. Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics. 2002; 27(4):299-309. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2710.2002.00430.x PMID: 12174032
29. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. BMJ: British Medical Journal. 2007; 335(7624):806-8. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39335.541782.AD PMC2034723. PMID: 17947786
30. Bastuji-Garin S, Sbidian E, Gaudy-Marqueste C, Ferrat E, Roujeau J-C, Richard M-A, et al. Impact of STROBE Statement Publication on Quality of Observational Study Reporting: Interrupted Time Series versus Before-After Analysis. PLoS ONE. 2013; 8(8):e64733. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0064733 PMID: 23990867
31. Müller M, Egger M. Strengthening the reporting of observational epidemiology (STROBE) in sexual health. Sexually Transmitted Infections. 2009; 85(3):162-4. doi: 10.1136/sti.2007.028985 PMID: 19478105
32. Poorolajal J, Cheraghi Z, Irani AD, Rezaeian S. Quality of Cohort Studies Reporting Post the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement. Epidemiol Health. 2011; 33(0):e2011005-0. doi: 10.4178/epih/e2011005
33. Fung AE, Palanki R, Bakri SJ, Depperschmidt E, Gibson A. Applying the CONSORT and STROBE Statements to Evaluate the Reporting Quality of Neovascular Age-related Macular Degeneration Studies. Ophthalmology. 116(2):286-96.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2008.09.014 PMID: 19091408
34. Sorensen AA, Wojahn RD, Manske MC, Calfee RP. Using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement to Assess Reporting of Observational Trials in Hand Surgery. The Journal of Hand Surgery. 2013; 38(8):1584-9.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2013.05.008 PMID: 23845586
35. Papathanasiou AA, Zintzaras E. Assessing the Quality of Reporting of Observational Studies in Cancer. Annals of Epidemiology. 2010; 20(1):67-73. doi: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2009.09.007 PMID: 20006277
36. Plint Amy C M D, Morrison Andra, Schulz Kenneth, Altman Douglas G, Hill Catherine and Gaboury Isabelle. Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review. Med J Aust 2006; 185(5):263-7. PMID: 16948622
37. Moher D, Jones A, Lepage L, for the CG. Use of the consort statement and quality of reports of randomized trials: A comparative before-and-after evaluation. JAMA. 2001; 285(15):1992-5. doi: 10.1001/jama.285.15.1992 PMID: 11308436
38. Anna Partsinevelou EZ. Quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials in polycystic ovary syndrome. Trials. 2009; 10(106).
39. Lucy Turner LS, Altman Douglas G, Schulz Kenneth F, Moher David. Does use of the CONSORT Statement impact the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials published in medical journals? A Cochrane review. Systematic Reviews. 2012; 1(60).
40. Kane RL, Wang J, Garrard J. Reporting in randomized clinical trials improved after adoption of the CONSORT statement. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2007; 60(3):241-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.06.016 PMID: 17292017
41. Cobo E, Cortés J, Ribera JM, Cardellach F, Selva-O'Callaghan A, Kostov B, et al. Effect of using reporting guidelines during peer review on quality of final manuscripts submitted to a biomedical journal: masked randomised trial2011 2011-11-22 12:16:35.
42. STROBE Statement. STROBE Endorsement. Available: http://www.strobe-statement.org/index.php?id=strobe-endorsement. Accessed October 29, 2015. Available: http://www.strobe-statement.org/index.php?id=strobe-endorsement.
43. Hartling L, Milne A, Hamm MP, Vandermeer B, Ansari M, Tsertsvadze A, et al. Testing the Newcastle Ottawa Scale showed low reliability between individual reviewers. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 66 (9):982-93. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.03.003 PMID: 23683848
44. Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol. 2010; 25(9):603-5. doi: 10.1007/s10654-010-9491-z PMID: 20652370
45. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011; 343. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d5928
46. Sterne JAC HJ, Reeves BC on behalf of the development group for ACROBAT-NRSI. A Cochrane Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool: for Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ACROBAT-NRSI), Version 1.0.0. http://www.riskofbias.info. Accessed Ocotber 30, 2015. 24 September 2014. Available from: http://www.riskofbias.info.