Abstract
BackgroundThe STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement was published in October 2007 to improve quality of reporting of observational studies. The aim of this review was to assess the impact of the STROBE statement on observational study reporting and study design quality in the nephrology literature.Study DesignSystematic literature review.Setting & PopulationEuropean and North American, Pre-dialysis Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) cohort studies.Selection Criteria for StudiesStudies assessing the association between CKD and mortality in the elderly (>65 years) published from 1st January 2002 to 31st December 2013 were included, following systematic searching of MEDLINE & EMBASE.PredictorTime period before and after the publication of the STROBE statement.OutcomeQuality of study reporting using the STROBE statement and quality of study design using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS), Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tools.Results37 papers (11 Pre & 26 Post STROBE) were identified from 3621 potential articles. Only four of the 22 STROBE items and their sub-criteria (objectives reporting, choice of quantitative groups and description of and carrying out sensitivity analysis) showed improvements, with the majority of items showing little change between the period before and after publication of the STROBE statement. Pre- and post-period analysis revealed a Manuscript STROBE score increase (median score 77.8% (Inter-quartile range [IQR], 64.7–82.0) vs 83% (IQR, 78.4–84.9, p = 0.05). There was no change in quality of study design with identical median scores in the two periods for NOS (Manuscript NOS score 88.9), SIGN (Manuscript SIGN score 83.3) and CASP (Manuscript CASP score 91.7) tools.LimitationsOnly 37 Studies from Europe and North America were included from one medical specialty. Assessment of study design largely reliant on good reporting.ConclusionsThis study highlights continuing deficiencies in the reporting of STROBE items and their sub-criteria in cohort studies in nephrology. There was weak evidence of improvement in the overall reporting quality, with no improvement in methodological quality of CKD cohort studies between the period before and after publication of the STROBE statement.
Highlights
Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a complex chronic condition, and in recent years has emerged as a major public health problem[1, 2]
There was no change in quality of study design with identical median scores in the two periods for Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) (Manuscript NOS score 88.9), Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) (Manuscript SIGN score 83.3) and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) (Manuscript CASP score 91.7) tools
The objectives of this review were (a) to determine whether the publication of the STROBE statement is associated with an improvement in the reporting quality of cohort studies assessing mortality in elderly patients with CKD; and (b) to determine whether the publication of the STROBE statement is associated with a decrease in risk of bias of cohort studies assessing mortality in elderly patients with CKD
Summary
Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a complex chronic condition, and in recent years has emerged as a major public health problem[1, 2]. With increasing life expectancy, patients are surviving longer with chronic conditions including CKD [3]. With the increasing burden of CKD, research of treatments developed to improve morbidity and mortality is vital [4]. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) indisputably hold many advantages over observational studies, but owing to ethical or other considerations, may be difficult or impossible to undertake[5,6,7]. The STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement was published in October 2007 to improve quality of reporting of observational studies. The aim of this review was to assess the impact of the STROBE statement on observational study reporting and study design quality in the nephrology literature
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
