Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2007 Oct 16;4(10):e296.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296.

The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies

Affiliations
Free PMC article
Review

The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies

Erik von Elm et al. PLoS Med. .
Free PMC article

Abstract

Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalisability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. 18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the Web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Comment in

  • STROBE: a Beacon for observational studies.
    Nijsten T, Spuls P, Stern RS. Nijsten T, et al. Arch Dermatol. 2008 Sep;144(9):1200-4. doi: 10.1001/archderm.144.9.1200. Arch Dermatol. 2008. PMID: 18794467 No abstract available.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Glasziou P, Vandenbroucke JP, Chalmers I. Assessing the quality of research. BMJ. 2004;328:39–41. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Black N. Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care. BMJ. 1996;312:1215–1218. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Papanikolaou PN, Christidi GD, Ioannidis JP. Comparison of evidence on harms of medical interventions in randomized and nonrandomized studies. CMAJ. 2006;174:635–641. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Jüni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ. 2001;323:42–46. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Egger M, Schneider M, Davey Smith G. Spurious precision? Meta-analysis of observational studies. BMJ. 1998;316:140–144. - PMC - PubMed