Skip to main content

Table 2 Percentage of items in the STROBE checklist which were addressed in cohort, case control, and cross-sectional studies published in four top scientific occupational journals in 2017

From: Quality of observational studies in prestigious journals of occupational medicine and health based on Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: a cross-sectional study

Item

Recommendation

Reported n (%)

Not reported n (%)

Not applicable n (%)

Title and abstract

 1a

Indicate the study’s design with a commonly used term in the title or the abstract

39 (65.0)

21 (35.0)

0 (0.0)

 1b

Provide in the abstract an informative and balanced summary of what was done and what was found

45 (75.0)

15 (25.0)

0 (0.0)

Introduction

 2

Explain the scientific background and rationale for the investigation being reported

60 (100.0)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

 3

State specific objectives, including any pre-specified hypotheses

53 (88.3)

7 (11.7)

0 (0.0)

Methods

 4

Present key elements of study design early in the paper

31 (51.7)

29 (48.3)

0 (0.0)

 5

Describe the setting, locations, and relevant dates, including periods of recruitment, exposure, follow-up, and data collection

54 (90.0)

6 (10.0)

0 (0.0)

 6a

Give the eligibility criteria

51 (85.0)

7 (11.7)

2 (3.3)

 6b

Describe methods of follow-up

56 (93.3)

4 (6.7)

0 (0.0)

 6c

Give matching criteria

7 (11.7)

3 (5)

50 (83.3)

 6d

Give number of exposed and unexposed in matched studies

4 (6.7)

4 (6.7)

52 (86.7)

 7a

Clearly, define all outcomes

60 (100.0)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

 7b

Clearly, define all exposures

53 (88.3)

6 (10.0)

1 (1.7)

 7c

Clearly, define all predictors

55 (91.7)

3 (5.0)

2 (3.3)

 7d

Clearly, define all potential confounders

41 (68.3)

19 (31.7)

0 (0.0)

 7e

Clearly, define all effect modifiers

25 (41.7)

35 (58.3)

0 (0.0)

 8a

give sources of data

60 (100.0)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

 8b

details of methods of assessment (measurement)

52 (86.7)

8 (13.3)

0 (0.0)

 9

Describe any efforts to address potential sources of bias

20 (33.3)

40 (66.7)

0 (0.0)

 10

Explain how the study size was arrived at

21 (35.0)

22 (36.7)

17 (28.3)

 11

If applicable, describe which groupings were chosen and why

46 (76.7)

9 (15.0)

5 (8.3)

 12a

Describe all statistical methods, including those used to control for confounding

60 (100)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

 12b

Describe all statistical software

38 (63.3)

22 (36.7)

0 (0.0)

 12c

Describe any methods used to examine subgroups and interactions

13 (21.7)

45 (75.0)

2 (3.3)

 12d

Explain how missing data were addressed

29 (48.3)

29 (48.3)

2 (3.3)

 12e

If applicable, explain how loss to follow-up was addressed

23 (38.3)

24 (40)

13 (21.7)

 12f

Describe any sensitivity analyses

5 (8.3)

55 (91.7)

0 (0.0)

Results

 13a

Report numbers of individuals at each stage of study

28 (46.7)

26 (43.3)

6 (10.0)

 13b

Give reasons for non-participation at each stage

4 (6.7)

56 (93.3)

0 (0.0)

 13c

Consider use of a flow diagram

28 (46.7)

32 (53.3)

0 (0.0)

 14a

Give characteristics of study participants

44 (73.3)

16 (26.7)

0 (0.0)

 14b

Indicate number of participants with missing data for each variable of interest

8 (13.3)

48 (80.0)

4 (6.7)

 14c

Summarise follow-up time (e.g., average and total amount)

21 (35.0)

38 (63.3)

1 (1.7)

 15

Report numbers of outcome events or summary measures

60 (100.0)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

 16a

Give unadjusted estimates

36 (60.0)

24 (40.0)

0 (0.0)

 16b

Give confounder-adjusted estimates

26 (43.3)

34 (56.7)

0 (0.0)

 16c

Give estimates precision/confidence interval

54 (90.0)

6 (10.0)

0 (0.0)

 16d

Report category boundaries when continuous variables were categorized

48 (80.0)

4 (6.7)

8 (13.3)

 16e

If relevant, consider translating estimates of relative risk into absolute risk for a meaningful time period

14 (23.3)

34 (56.7)

12 (20.0)

 17

Report other analyses done—e.g. analyses of subgroups and interactions and sensitivity analyses

14 (23.3)

46 (76)

0 (0.0)

Discussion

 18

Summarise key results with reference to study objectives

60 (100.0)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

 19

Discuss limitations of the study, taking into account sources of potential bias or imprecision. Discuss both direction and magnitude of any potential bias

53 (88.3)

7 (11.7)

0 (0.0)

 20a

Give a cautious interpretation of results considering objectives

60 (100.0)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

 20b

Explain results from similar studies

60 (100.0)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

 21

Discuss the generalisability (external validity) of the study results

46 (76.7)

14 (23.3)

0 (0.0)

Other information

 22

Give the source of funding and the role of the funders for the present study

56 (93.3)

4 (6.7)

0 (0.0)

 1–22

Total

63.74

29.70

6.56

  1. The STROBE statement is the guidelines for reporting observational studies, defined as Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology