Use of the STROBE Checklist to Evaluate the Reporting Quality of Observational Research in Obstetrics

April D. Adams · Rebecca S. Benner · Thomas W. Riggs · Nancy C. Chescheir

48 citations0/0 files storedObstetrics and Gynecology

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Academic Writing and Publishing Statistical Methods in Epidemiology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate observational research manuscripts submitted to Obstetrics & Gynecology to determine the level of adherence to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist and highlight specific areas that could be improved. METHODS: A scoring system based on the STROBE checklist was developed and validated for consistency by volunteer medical students or doctors. Using this scoring system, we performed a cross-sectional analysis on 198 observational research manuscripts submitted to Obstetrics & Gynecology from 2008 to 2016. Each manuscript was given a score based on the STROBE checklist. Comparisons were made among acceptance status, country of origin, and study type. Descriptive statistics (means, medians, and frequencies) were calculated for each manuscript category. The t test or Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare differences between two groups and analysis of variance or the Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare differences among three or more groups. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference between the mean score for accepted (23.2±2.7) compared with rejected (19.7±4.1) manuscripts (P<.001). This difference was not seen when comparing country of origin and study type. Poor reporting was seen among all manuscript categories for objectives, study size, missing data, study participants, and translation of risk. Additionally, rejected manuscripts had poor reporting for eligibility criteria, variables, bias and confounding, statistical methods, unadjusted and adjusted estimates, and category boundaries. CONCLUSION: Overall, accepted manuscripts show better adherence to the STROBE checklist, but there are several critical items that are poorly reported in all manuscripts.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 48 citations exist upstream.

References

2007The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies 2007The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies 2007Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration 2007Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE)2011Effect of using reporting guidelines during peer review on quality of final manuscripts submitted to a biomedical journal: masked randomised trial 2014Relation of completeness of reporting of health research to journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines: systematic review 2012Are Peer Reviewers Encouraged to Use Reporting Guidelines? A Survey of 116 Health Research Journals 2013A systematic scoping review of adherence to reporting guidelines in health care literature

Cited by

2023A Meta-Analysis of Evidence Synthesis for a Healthy Campus Built Environment by Adopting Active Design Approaches to Promote Physical Activity

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.