Additional Information
- Describe informed consent proceduers and and approval from ethical committee(s)
- If ethical approval was not obtained, explain the reason why not (e.g., public health outbreak response/non-research designation)
- Report any special ethical considerations (e.g., recruitment of minors, children, nenoates, etc.)
- Specify whether data/samples were anonymous, anonymized, or identifiable
- Describe any quality standards used in the conduct of the research
- Provide information on how to access supplemental information, the study protocol, data collection tools, raw data, and/or code
- Describe any conflicts of interest, or lack thereof, for each author
- Describe the authors’ roles (CRediT and/or ICMJE criteria)
Concluding Remarks
STROBE Statement aims to provide helpful recommendations for reporting observational studies in epidemiology. Good reporting reveals the strengths and weaknesses of a study and facilitates sound interpretation and application of study results. The STROBE Statement may also aid in planning observational studies, and guide peer reviewers and editors in their evaluation of manuscripts.
We wrote this explanatory article to discuss the importance of transparent and complete reporting of observational studies, to explain the rationale behind the different items included in the checklist, and to give examples from published articles of what we consider good reporting. We hope that the material presented here will assist authors and editors in using STROBE.
We stress that STROBE and other recommendations on the reporting of research (Bossuyt et al., 2003; Moher et al., 2001; Stroup et al., 2000) should be seen as evolving documents that require continual assessment, refinement, and, if necessary, change.(Altman, 2001; Moher, 1998) For example, the CONSORT Statement for the reporting of parallel-group randomized trials was first developed in the mid 1990s.(Begg et al., 1996) Since then members of the group have met regularly to review the need to revise the recommendations; a revised version appeared in 2001 and a further version is in development. Similarly, the principles presented in this article and the STROBE checklist are open to change as new evidence and critical comments accumulate. The STROBE web site provides a forum for discussion and suggestions for improvements of the checklist, this explanatory document and information about the good reporting of epidemiological studies.
Several journals ask authors to follow the STROBE Statement in their instructions to authors (see http://www.strobe-statement.org for current list). We invite other journals to adopt the STROBE Statement and contact us through our web site to let us know.The journals publishing the STROBE recommendations provide open access. The STROBE Statement is therefore widely accessible to the biomedical community.(Vandenbroucke et al., 2007)
Field-specific guidance
Simulation-based research (Cheng et al., 2016)
- List simulator brand and if conflict of interest for intellectual property exists.
References
Altman, D. G. (2001). The Revised CONSORT Statement for Reporting Randomized Trials: Explanation and Elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine, 134(8), 663. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-134-8-200104170-00012
Begg, C., Cho, M., Eastwood, S., Horton, R., Moher, D., Olkin, I., Pitkin, R., Rennie, D., Schulz, K. F., Simel, D., & Stroup, D. F. (1996). Improving the Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials: The CONSORT Statement. JAMA, 276(8), 637–639. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1996.03540080059030
Bossuyt, P. M., Reitsma, J. B., Bruns, D. E., Gatsonis, C. A., Glasziou, P. P., Irwig, L. M., Lijmer, J. G., Moher, D., Rennie, D., & Vet, H. C. W. de. (2003). Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD initiative. BMJ : British Medical Journal, 326(7379), 41–44. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1124931/
Cheng, A., Kessler, D., Mackinnon, R., Chang, T. P., Nadkarni, V. M., Hunt, E. A., Duval-Arnould, J., Lin, Y., Cook, D. A., Pusic, M., Hui, J., Moher, D., Egger, M., & Auerbach, M. (2016). Reporting guidelines for health care simulation research: Extensions to the CONSORT and STROBE statements. Advances in Simulation, 1, 25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077-016-0025-y
Moher, D. (1998). CONSORT: An Evolving Tool to Help Improve the Quality of Reports of Randomized Controlled Trials. JAMA, 279(18), 1489–1491. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.279.18.1489
Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., & Altman, D. G. (2001). The CONSORT statement: Revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. The Lancet, 357(9263), 1191–1194. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(00)04337-3
Stroup, D. F., Berlin, J. A., Morton, S. C., Olkin, I., Williamson, G. D., Rennie, D., Moher, D., Becker, B. J., Sipe, T. A., Thacker, S. B., & Epidemiology (MOOSE) Group, for the M.-a. O. O. S. in. (2000). Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology: A Proposal for Reporting. JAMA, 283(15), 2008–2012. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.283.15.2008
Vandenbroucke, J. P., Elm, E. von, Altman, D. G., Gotzsche, P. C., Mulrow, C. D., Pocock, S. J., Poole, C., Schlesselman, J. J., & Egger, M. (2007). Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration. Epidemiology, 18(6), 805–835. https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181577511