Epidemiyolojide Gözlemsel Çalışmalar (STROBE)
Özet
Epidemiyolojide Gözlemsel Çalışmaların Raporlanmasını Güçlendirme (STROBE) bildirimi, kohort, vaka-kontrol ve kesitsel çalışmaların şeffaf ve eksiksiz bir şekilde sunulması için geliştirilmiş 22 maddelik bir rehberdir. Araştırmanın tasarımı, değişkenleri, örneklem büyüklüğü ve istatistiksel yöntemleri gibi kritik unsurların nasıl raporlanması gerektiğini açıklayarak bilimsel güvenilirliği ve sonuçların karşılaştırılabilirliğini artırmayı hedefler. Bu rehber, araştırmacıların metodolojik hataları minimize etmesine ve okuyucuların çalışmanın güçlü ve zayıf yönlerini doğru değerlendirmesine olanak tanır. Editörler ve hakemler için de bir değerlendirme aracı işlevi gören STROBE, tıbbi literatürün kalitesini yükseltmek amacıyla dünya genelindeki birçok dergi tarafından desteklenmektedir.
The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement is a 22-item checklist designed to ensure the transparent and complete reporting of cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. It provides detailed guidance on documenting research design, variables, sample size, and statistical methods to enhance scientific credibility and facilitate the comparison of results. By helping researchers minimize methodological gaps, STROBE allows readers to accurately assess the strengths and limitations of a study. Serving as a vital tool for editors and peer reviewers, this guideline is widely supported by international journals to improve the overall quality of medical literature.
Referanslar
P. Glasziou, J.P. Vandenbroucke, I. Chalmers, Assessing the quality of research, BMJ 328 (2004) 39e41.
N. Black, Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care, BMJ 312 (1996) 1215e1218.
P.N. Papanikolaou, G.D. Christidi, J.P. Ioannidis, Comparison of evidence on harms of medical interventions in randomized and nonrandomized studies, CMAJ 174 (2006) 635e641.
P. Jüni, D.G. Altman, M. Egger, Systematic reviews in health care: assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials, BMJ 323 (2001) 42e46.
M. Egger, M. Schneider, G. Davey Smith, Spurious precision? Meta-analysis of observational studies, BMJ 316 (1998) 140e144.
S.J. Pocock, T.J. Collier, K.J. Dandreo, B.L. de Stavola, M.B. Goldman, et al., Issues in the reporting of epidemiological studies: a survey of recent practice, BMJ 329 (2004) 883.
D. Moher, K.F. Schulz, D.G. Altman, The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials, Lancet 357 (2001) 1191e1194
D. Moher, D.G. Altman, K.F. Schulz, D.R. Elbourne, Opportunities and challenges for improving the quality of reporting clinical research: CONSORT and beyond, CMAJ 171 (2004) 349e350.
A.C. Plint, D. Moher, A. Morrison, K. Schulz, D.G. Altman, et al., Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review, Med. J. Aust. 185 (2006) 263e267.
M. Egger, P. Jüni, C. Bartlett, Value of flow diagrams in reports of randomized controlled trials, JAMA 285 (2001) 1996e1999.
Erik von Elm, Douglas G. Altman, Matthias Egger, Stuart J. Pocock d , Peter C. Gøtzsche, Jan P. Vandenbroucke, for the STROBE Initiative, The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies, International Journal of Surgery, Volume 12, Issue 12, December 2014, Pages 1495-1499.
J.P. Vandenbroucke, E. von Elm, D.G. Altman, P.C. Gøtzsche, C.D. Mulrow, et al., for the STROBE Initiative, Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration, PLoS Med. 4 (2007) e297, http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040297
Zekiye Karaçam, Çeviri: Strobe Bildirimi: Epidemiyolojide Gözlemsel Araştirma Raporu Yazımının Güçlendirilmesi İçin Bir Rehber, Anadolu Hemşirelik ve Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi, 2014;17:1.
Forand SP (2004) Leukaemia incidence among workers in the shoe and boot manufacturing industry: a case-control study. Environ Health 3: 7.
Benson K, Hartz AJ (2000) A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med 342: 1878–1886.
Gotzsche PC, Harden A Searching for non-randomised studies. Draft chapter 3. Cochrane Non-Randomised Studies Methods Group, 26 July 2002. Available: http://www.cochrane.dk/nrsmg. Accessed 10 September 2007.
Lohse N, Hansen AB, Pedersen G, Kronborg G, Gerstoft J, et al. (2007) Survival of persons with and without HIV infection in Denmark, 1995– 2005. Ann Intern Med 146: 87–95.
American Journal of Epidemiology (2007) Information for authors. Available: http://www.oxfordjournals.org/aje/for_authors/index.html. Accessed 10 September 2007.
Haynes RB, Mulrow CD, Huth EJ, Altman DG, Gardner MJ (1990) More informative abstracts revisited. Ann Intern Med 113: 69–76.
Taddio A, Pain T, Fassos FF, Boon H, Ilersich AL, et al. (1994) Quality of nonstructured and structured abstracts of original research articles in the British Medical Journal, the Canadian Medical Association Journal and the Journal of the American Medical Association. CMAJ 150: 1611– 1615.
Hartley J, Sydes M (1996) Which layout do you prefer? An analysis of readers’ preferences for different typographic layouts of structured abstracts. J Inform Sci 22: 27–37.
Becher H (1992) The concept of residual confounding in regression models and some applications. Stat Med 11: 1747–1758.
Brenner H, Blettner M (1997) Controlling for continuous confounders in epidemiologic research. Epidemiology 8: 429–434.
Carlin JB, Doyle LW (2002) Sample size. J Paediatr Child Health 38: 300– 304.
Rigby AS, Vail A (1998) Statistical methods in epidemiology. II: A commonsense approach to sample size estimation. Disabil Rehabil 20: 405–410.
Altman DG, Lausen B, Sauerbrei W, Schumacher M (1994) Dangers of using ‘‘optimal’’ cutpoints in the evaluation of prognostic factors. J Natl Cancer Inst 86: 829–835.
Royston P, Altman DG, Sauerbrei W (2006) Dichotomizing continuous predictors in multiple regression: a bad idea. Stat Med 25: 127–141.
Hess DR (2004) How to write an effective discussion. Respir Care 49: 1238–1241.
Docherty M, Smith R (1999) The case for structuring the discussion of scientific papers. BMJ 318: 1224–1225.
Perneger TV, Hudelson PM (2004) Writing a research article: advice to beginners. Int J Qual Health Care 16: 191–192.
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (1997) Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals [Electronic version updated February 2006, available at http://www.icmje.org/] N Engl J Med 336: 309–315.
Krimsky S, Rothenberg LS (2001) Conflict of interest policies in science and medical journals: editorial practices and author disclosures. Sci Eng Ethics 7: 205–218.
