standOff. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote shown on the same row, so the borrowing can be checked against the thing borrowed from without leaving this page. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.| second reading | alternatives | an independent re-reading of a facet, recorded whether or not it agrees |
| relation to other work | claim_relations | how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies |
| claim type | claim_type | the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null |
| concept edge | concept_edges | an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it |
| concept | concepts | an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it |
| content tag | content_tags | a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper |
| contribution | contribution | what the paper claims to add |
| limitation | limitations | what the paper says its evidence cannot support |
| mechanism | mechanisms | how the reported effect is said to come about |
| method | method | how the paper produced its evidence |
| object of study | object_of_study | what the paper is about — the thing it investigates |
| phenomenon | phenomenon | the effect or regularity under study |
| research question | research_question | the question the paper sets itself |
| sense | senses | a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it |
| transfer | transfers | a method or concept carried in from another field |
| unrecordable relation | unhoused_relations | a relation the paper asserts that this vocabulary cannot express, with the reason |
The reference list is not part of the text we hold for this paper. Our copy was extracted from the publisher's page and the bibliography did not survive that extraction, so the article below ends before its references. Nothing has been removed by us.
The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies | PLOS Medicine
Article
Authors
Metrics
Comments
Media Coverage
Reader Comments
Figures
Figures
Abstract
research_questionMuch biomedical research is observational. phenomenoncontent_tagsThe reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalisability. object_of_studyclaim_typeThe 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. transfersWe defined the scope of the recommendations content_tagsto cover content_tags↗three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. method↗alternativesWe 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 content_tagsresulted in content_tags↗a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. content_tagscontent_tags18 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.
Citation: von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, et al. (2007) The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies. PLoS Med 4(10): e296.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296
Received: June 20, 2007; Accepted: August 30, 2007; Published: October 16, 2007
Copyright: © 2007 von Elm et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. For details on further use, see the STROBE Web site (http://www.strobe-statement.org/). In order to encourage dissemination of the STROBE Statement, this article will also be published and made freely available by Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, Bulletin of the World Health Organization, Epidemiology, The Lancet, and Preventive Medicine.
Funding: The workshop was funded by the European Science Foundation (ESF). Additional funding was received from the Medical Research Council Health Services Research Collaboration and the National Health Services Research and Development Methodology Programme. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Abbreviations: CONSORT, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials; STREGA, STROBE Extension to Genetic Association Studies; STROBE, Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology
Introduction
Many questions in medical research are investigated in observational studies [ 1 ]. Much of the research into the cause of diseases relies on cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. Observational studies also have a role in research into the benefits and harms of medical interventions [ 2 ]. concepts↗Randomised trials cannot answer all important questions about a given intervention. For example, concept_edgesobservational studies are more suitable to detect rare or late adverse effects of treatments, and are more likely to provide an indication of what is achieved in daily medical practice [ 3 ].
concepts↗sensescontent_tagscontent_tags↗Research should be reported transparently so that readers can follow what was planned, what was done, what was found, and what conclusions were drawn. mechanisms↗The credibility of research depends on a critical assessment by others of the strengths and weaknesses in study design, conduct, and analysis. Transparent reporting is also needed to judge whether and how results can be included in systematic reviews [ 4 , 5 ]. alternativesHowever, limitationsin published observational research important information is often missing or unclear. concepts↗content_tagsAn analysis of epidemiological studies published in general medical and specialist journals found that the rationale behind the choice of potential confounding variables was often not reported [ 6 ]. content_tagsOnly few reports of case-control studies in psychiatry explained the methods used to identify cases and controls [ 7 ]. claim_relationscontent_tagscontent_tagsIn a survey of longitudinal studies in stroke research, 17 of 49 articles (35%) did not specify the eligibility criteria [ 8 ]. Others have argued that without sufficient clarity of reporting, the benefits of research might be achieved more slowly [ 9 ], and that there is a need for guidance in reporting observational studies [ 10 , 11 ].
concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗sensessensesconcept_edgesconcept_edgesRecommendations on the reporting of research can improve reporting quality. concepts↗concepts↗claim_relationsThe Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement was developed in 1996 and revised 5 years later [ 12 ]. mechanisms↗Many medical journals supported this initiative [ 13 ], which has helped to improve the quality of reports of randomised trials [ 14 , 15 ]. Similar initiatives have followed for other research areas—e.g., for the reporting of meta-analyses of randomised trials [ 16 ] or diagnostic studies [ 17 ]. We established a network of methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to develop recommendations for the reporting of observational research: the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement.
Aims and Use of the STROBE Statement
concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗sensessensesThe STROBE Statement is a checklist of items that should be addressed in articles reporting on the 3 main study designs of analytical epidemiology: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. concepts↗sensesalternativesconcept_edgesThe intention is solely to provide guidance on how to report observational research well: these recommendations are not prescriptions for designing or conducting studies. limitationsconcepts↗sensesconcept_edgesAlso, concepts↗concepts↗unhoused_relationssenseswhile clarity of reporting is a prerequisite to evaluation, the checklist is not an instrument to evaluate the quality of observational research.
Here we present the STROBE Statement and explain how it was developed. In a detailed companion paper, the Explanation and Elaboration article [ 18 – 20 ], we justify the inclusion of the different checklist items and give methodological background and published examples of what we consider transparent reporting. We strongly recommend using the STROBE checklist in conjunction with the explanatory article, which is available freely on the Web sites of PLoS Medicine ( http://www.plosmedicine.org/ ), Annals of Internal Medicine ( http://www.annals.org/ ), and Epidemiology ( http://www.epidem.com/ ).
Development of the STROBE Statement
We established the STROBE Initiative in 2004, obtained funding for a workshop and set up a Web site ( http://www.strobe-statement.org/ ). We searched textbooks, bibliographic databases, reference lists, and personal files for relevant material, including previous recommendations, empirical studies of reporting and articles describing relevant methodological research. Because observational research makes use of many different study designs, we felt that the scope of STROBE had to be clearly defined early on. concepts↗concepts↗We decided to focus on the 3 study designs that are used most widely in analytical observational research: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies.
We organised a 2-day workshop in Bristol, UK, in September 2004. mechanisms↗content_tags23 individuals attended this meeting, including editorial staff from Annals of Internal Medicine , BMJ , Bulletin of the World Health Organization , International Journal of Epidemiology , JAMA , Preventive Medicine , and The Lancet, as well as epidemiologists, methodologists, statisticians, and practitioners from Europe and North America. Written contributions were sought from 10 other individuals who declared an interest in contributing to STROBE, but could not attend. Three working groups identified items deemed to be important to include in checklists for each type of study. A provisional list of items prepared in advance (available from our Web site) was used to facilitate discussions. The 3 draft checklists were then discussed by all participants and, where possible, items were revised to make them applicable to all three study designs. In a final plenary session, the group decided on the strategy for finalizing and disseminating the STROBE Statement.
After the workshop we drafted a combined checklist including all three designs and made it available on our Web site. We invited participants and additional scientists and editors to comment on this draft checklist. We subsequently published 3 revisions on the Web site, and 2 summaries of comments received and changes made. During this process the coordinating group (i.e., the authors of the present paper) met on eight occasions for 1 or 2 days and held several telephone conferences to revise the checklist and to prepare the present paper and the Explanation and Elaboration paper [ 18 – 20 ]. The coordinating group invited 3 additional co-authors with methodological and editorial expertise to help write the Explanation and Elaboration paper, and sought feedback from more than 30 people, who are listed at the end of this paper. We allowed several weeks for comments on subsequent drafts of the paper and reminded collaborators about deadlines by e-mail.
STROBE Components
contributionconcepts↗concepts↗concept_edgescontent_tagscontent_tags↗The STROBE Statement is a checklist of 22 items that we consider essential for good reporting of observational studies ( Table 1 ). These items relate to the article's title and abstract (item 1), the introduction (items 2 and 3), methods (items 4–12), results (items 13–17) and discussion sections (items 18–21), and other information (item 22 on funding). 18 items are common to all three designs, while four (items 6, 12, 14, and 15) are design-specific, with different versions for all or part of the item. For some items (indicated by asterisks), information should be given separately for cases and controls in case-control studies, or exposed and unexposed groups in cohort and cross-sectional studies. Although presented here as a single checklist, separate checklists are available for each of the 3 study designs on the STROBE Web site.
Download: PNG
larger image
TIFF
original image
Table 1.
The STROBE Statement—Checklist of Items That Should Be Addressed in Reports of Observational Studies
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296.t001
Implications and Limitations
The STROBE Statement was developed to assist authors when writing up analytical observational studies, to support editors and reviewers when considering such articles for publication, and to help readers when critically appraising published articles. mechanismsclaim_relationsWe developed the checklist through an open process, taking into account the experience gained with previous initiatives, in particular CONSORT. We reviewed the relevant empirical evidence as well as methodological work, and subjected consecutive drafts to an extensive iterative process of consultation. The checklist presented here is thus based on input from a large number of individuals with diverse backgrounds and perspectives. The comprehensive explanatory article [ 18 – 20 ], which is intended for use alongside the checklist, also benefited greatly from this consultation process.
Observational studies serve a wide range of purposes, on a continuum from the discovery of new findings to the confirmation or refutation of previous findings [ 18 – 20 ]. Some studies are essentially exploratory and raise interesting hypotheses. Others pursue clearly defined hypotheses in available data. In yet another type of studies, the collection of new data is planned carefully on the basis of an existing hypothesis. We believe the present checklist can be useful for all these studies, since the readers always need to know what was planned (and what was not), what was done, what was found, and what the results mean. limitationslimitationsWe acknowledge that STROBE is currently limited to three main observational study designs. We would welcome extensions that adapt the checklist to other designs—e.g., case-crossover studies or ecological studies—and also to specific topic areas. Four extensions are now available for the CONSORT statement [ 21 – 24 ]. concepts↗concept_edgesA first extension to STROBE is underway for gene-disease association studies: the STROBE Extension to Genetic Association studies (STREGA) initiative [ 25 ]. We ask those who aim to develop extensions of the STROBE Statement to contact the coordinating group first to avoid duplication of effort.
limitationsconcepts↗sensesconcept_edgesThe STROBE Statement should not be interpreted as an attempt to prescribe the reporting of observational research in a rigid format. The checklist items should be addressed in sufficient detail and with clarity somewhere in an article, but the order and format for presenting information depends on author preferences, journal style, and the traditions of the research field. For instance, we discuss the reporting of results under a number of separate items, while recognizing that authors might address several items within a single section of text or in a table. Also, item 22, on the source of funding and the role of funders, could be addressed in an appendix or in the methods section of the article. sensesWe do not aim at standardising reporting. Authors of randomised clinical trials were asked by an editor of a specialist medical journal to “CONSORT” their manuscripts on submission [ 26 ]. concepts↗concepts↗sensesWe believe that manuscripts should not be “STROBEd”, in the sense of regulating style or terminology. We encourage authors to use narrative elements, including the description of illustrative cases, to complement the essential information about their study, and to make their articles an interesting read [ 27 ].
limitationsWe emphasise that the STROBE Statement was not developed as a tool for assessing the quality of published observational research. Such instruments have been developed by other groups and were the subject of a recent systematic review [ 28 ]. In the Explanation and Elaboration paper, concepts↗concepts↗sensesconcept_edgeswe used several examples of good reporting from studies whose results were not confirmed in further research – the important feature was the good reporting, not whether the research was of good quality. However, if STROBE is adopted by authors and journals, issues such as confounding, bias, and generalisability could become more transparent, which might help temper the over-enthusiastic reporting of new findings in the scientific community and popular media [ 29 ], and improve the methodology of studies in the long term. Better reporting may also help to have more informed decisions about when new studies are needed, and what they should address.
limitationsWe did not undertake a comprehensive systematic review for each of the checklist items and sub-items, or do our own research to fill gaps in the evidence base. limitationsFurther, although no one was excluded from the process, the composition of the group of contributors was influenced by existing networks and was not representative in terms of geography (it was dominated by contributors from Europe and North America) and probably was not representative in terms of research interests and disciplines. We stress that concepts↗sensesSTROBE and other recommendations on the reporting of research should be seen as evolving documents that require continual assessment, refinement, and, if necessary, change. We welcome suggestions for the further dissemination of STROBE—e.g., by re-publication of the present article in specialist journals and in journals published in other languages. Groups or individuals who intend to translate the checklist to other languages should consult the coordinating group beforehand. mechanismsWe will revise the checklist in the future, taking into account comments, criticism, new evidence, and experience from its use. We invite readers to submit their comments via the STROBE Web site ( http://www.strobe-statement.org/ ).
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to Gerd Antes, Kay Dickersin, Shah Ebrahim, and Richard Lilford for supporting the STROBE Initiative. We are grateful to the following institutions that have hosted working meetings of the coordinating group: Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine (ISPM), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland; Department of Social Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK; Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark; and Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Oxford, UK. We are grateful to six reviewers who provided helpful comments on a previous draft of this paper.
Contributors to the STROBE Initiative
The following individuals have contributed to the content and elaboration of the STROBE Statement: Douglas G Altman, Maria Blettner, Paolo Boffetta, Hermann Brenner, Geneviève Chêne, Cyrus Cooper, George Davey-Smith, Erik von Elm, Matthias Egger, France Gagnon, Peter C Gøtzsche, Philip Greenland, Sander Greenland, Claire Infante-Rivard, John Ioannidis, Astrid James, Giselle Jones, Bruno Ledergerber, Julian Little, Margaret May, David Moher, Hooman Momen, Alfredo Morabia, Hal Morgenstern, Cynthia D Mulrow, Fred Paccaud, Stuart J Pocock, Charles Poole, Martin Röösli, Dietrich Rothenbacher, Kenneth Rothman, Caroline Sabin, Willi Sauerbrei, Lale Say, James J Schlesselman, Jonathan Sterne, Holly Syddall, Jan P Vandenbroucke, Ian White, Susan Wieland, Hywel Williams, Guang Yong Zou.
Author Contributions
The authors coordinated the STROBE Initiative and contributed to the writing of the paper. EvE wrote the first draft of the paper and takes care of most of the practical coordination of STROBE. ME initiated STROBE and, together with EvE, organised the first workshop.
NOT THE PAPER'S TEXT. Added by this project on 2026-08-25: the table below was restored from the held scrape because the staged text did not contain it, and document order is therefore not the paper's. [TABLE 1 RESTORED 2026-08-25 by terminal-a from fulltext.html - the staged body contained none of the 22 STROBE recommendations and the held scrape contains them. Found by META_CLAUDE (0 of 11 staged, 11 of 11 in the scrape) and by CLAUDE_B from the tag side (two live quotes already cut from this column, both ungrounded, both verbatim here). Verified independently: 0 of 9 probe items staged, 8 of 9 in the scrape. APPENDED AT THE END so no existing anchor offset moves; document order is therefore not the paper's.]
Table 1. The STROBE Statement—Checklist of Items That Should Be Addressed in Reports of Observational Studies Item number Recommendation TITLE and ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION Background/ rationale Objectives METHODS Study design Setting Participants Variables Data sources/ measurement Bias Study size Quantitative variables Statistical methods 4 5 6 7 8* 9 10 11 12 RESULTS Participants 13* Descriptive data 14* Outcome data 15* Main results Other analyses DISCUSSION Key results Limitations Interpretation Generalisability OTHER INFORMATION Funding 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 (a) Indicate the study’s design with a commonly used term in the title or the abstract (b) Provide in the abstract an informative and balanced summary of what was done and what was found Explain the scientific background and rationale for the investigation being reported State specific objectives, including any prespecified hypotheses Present key elements of study design early in the paper Describe the setting, locations, and relevant dates, including periods of recruitment, exposure, follow-up, and data collection (a) Cohort study—Give the eligibility criteria, and the sources and methods of selection of participants. Describe methods of follow-up Case-control study—Give the eligibility criteria, and the sources and methods of case ascertainment and control selection. Give the rationale for the choice of cases and controls Cross-sectional study—Give the eligibility criteria, and the sources and methods of selection of participants (b) Cohort study—For matched studies, give matching criteria and number of exposed and unexposed Case-control study—For matched studies, give matching criteria and the number of controls per case concepts↗concepts↗sensessensesClearly define all outcomes, exposures, predictors, potential confounders, and effect modifiers. Give diagnostic criteria, if applicable For each variable of interest, give sources of data and details of methods of assessment (measurement). Describe comparability of assessment methods if there is more than one group Describe any efforts to address potential sources of bias Explain how the study size was arrived at Explain how quantitative variables were handled in the analyses. If applicable, describe which groupings were chosen, and why (a) concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗sensessensesDescribe all statistical methods, including those used to control for confounding (b) Describe any methods used to examine subgroups and interactions (c) Explain how missing data were addressed (d) Cohort study—If applicable, explain how loss to follow-up was addressed Case-control study—If applicable, explain how matching of cases and controls was addressed Cross-sectional study—If applicable, describe analytical methods taking account of sampling strategy (e) Describe any sensitivity analyses (a) Report the numbers of individuals at each stage of the study—e.g., numbers potentially eligible, examined for eligibility, con- firmed eligible, included in the study, completing follow-up, and analysed (b) Give reasons for non-participation at each stage (c) Consider use of a flow diagram (a) Give characteristics of study participants (e.g., demographic, clinical, social) and information on exposures and potential con- founders (b) Indicate the number of participants with missing data for each variable of interest (c) Cohort study—Summarise follow-up time (e.g., average and total amount) Cohort study—Report numbers of outcome events or summary measures over time Case-control study—Report numbers in each exposure category, or summary measures of exposure Cross-sectional study—content_tags↗Report numbers of outcome events or summary measures (a) concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗sensessensesGive unadjusted estimates and, if applicable, confounder-adjusted estimates and their precision (e.g., 95% confidence interval). Make clear which confounders were adjusted for and why they were included (b) Report content_tags↗category boundaries when continuous variables were categorized (c) If relevant, consider translating estimates of relative risk into absolute risk for a meaningful time period Report other analyses done—e.g., analyses of subgroups and interactions, and sensitivity analyses Summarise key results with reference to study objectives Discuss limitations of the study, taking into account sources of potential bias or imprecision. Discuss both direction and magnitude of any potential bias Give a cautious overall interpretation of results considering objectives, limitations, multiplicity of analyses, results from similar stu- dies, and other relevant evidence concepts↗concepts↗sensesconcept_edgesDiscuss the generalisability (external validity) of the study results Give the source of funding and the role of the funders for the present study and, if applicable, for the original study on which the present article is based *Give such information separately for cases and controls in case-control studies, and, if applicable, for exposed and unexposed groups in cohort and cross-sectional studies
Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; 5 of 10 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.
This record holds no controls. A layer is empty when the tagger recorded nothing in it — which is not the same as the paper having nothing to record.
| facet | tag | field | conf. | whose words |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| object_of_study | What an accurate and complete report of a cohort, case-control or cross-sectional study must contain. | object_of_study | the paper's words | |
| research_question | Observational research is often reported so incompletely that a reader cannot judge it - what minimum set of items would fix that? | research_question | the paper's words | |
| contribution | A 22-item checklist, 18 items shared across three observational designs and four design-specific, arrived at by workshop and iterative consultation. | contribution | the paper's words | |
| claim_type | method | claim_type | the paper's words | |
| phenomenon | reporting quality of observational epidemiological studies | phenomenon | the paper's words | |
| method | expert-consensus also in: expert-consensus | method | the paper's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms | mechanisms[0] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | mechanisms | mechanisms[1] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | mechanisms | mechanisms[2] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | A STANDARD MODELLED ON A STANDARD FROM A DIFFERENT STUDY DESIGN: `We developed the checklist through an open process, taking into account the experience gained with previous initiatives, in particular CONSORT.` Inheritance between guideline families, stated as method rather than as citation. | mechanisms[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | AND THE REVISION IS PROMISED BEFORE ANY EVIDENCE FOR IT EXISTS: `We will revise the checklist in the future, taking into account comments, criticism, new evidence, and experience from its use.` A standing commitment to revise, made in the founding document - which is what MISEV, CONSORT and EWGSOP all later did without having said so in advance. | mechanisms[4] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | in published observational research important information is often missing or unclear (the gap STROBE addresses) what this limits: the gap the statement addresses: IN PUBLISHED OBSERVATIONAL RESEARCH IMPORTANT INFORMATION IS OFTEN MISSING OR UNCLEAR | limitations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | STROBE covers only three observational designs and does not yet extend to others such as case-crossover or ecological studies. what this limits: the designs it covers: STROBE IS CURRENTLY LIMITED TO THREE MAIN OBSERVATIONAL STUDY DESIGNS | limitations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | No comprehensive systematic review was done for the individual checklist items and no new research was conducted to fill evidence gaps. what this limits: the evidential basis of the checklist items themselves: WE DID NOT UNDERTAKE A COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEMATIC REVIEW FOR EACH OF THE CHECKLIST ITEMS AND SUB-ITEMS, OR DO OUR OWN RESEARCH TO FILL GAPS IN THE EVIDENCE BASE | limitations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The group of contributors was shaped by existing networks and was not geographically or disciplinarily representative. what this limits: the authority of the recommendations: THE COMPOSITION OF THE GROUP OF CONTRIBUTORS WAS INFLUENCED BY EXISTING NETWORKS AND WAS NOT REPRESENTATIVE IN TERMS OF GEOGRAPHY | limitations[3] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The checklist is explicitly not a quality-assessment instrument for observational research. what this limits: quality appraisal, which the authors rule out as CONSORT does: the checklist is not a quality-assessment instrument for observational research | limitations[4] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Covers only three observational designs; case-crossover and ecological studies are outside it. what this limits: the same scope as limitations[1] - the checklist covers three observational designs, and case-crossover and ecological studies are outside it | limitations[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The authors explicitly disclaim rigidity and standardisation - the items must be addressed somewhere, in any order or format. what this limits: any use of the statement as a prescribed format: THE STROBE STATEMENT SHOULD NOT BE INTERPRETED AS AN ATTEMPT TO PRESCRIBE THE REPORTING OF OBSERVATIONAL RESEARCH IN A RIGID FORMAT | limitations[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The checklist is not a quality-assessment instrument, and the paper says so to forestall exactly that use. what this limits: any use of the checklist as a quality score: WHILE CLARITY OF REPORTING IS A PREREQUISITE TO EVALUATION, THE CHECKLIST IS NOT AN INSTRUMENT TO EVALUATE THE QUALITY OF OBSERVATIONAL RESEARCH | limitations[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | the epidemiological and statistical methodology of observational study designs (cohort, case-control, cross-sectional) and confounding control, standardized for transparent medical reporting | transfers[0] | the tagger's words | |
| concepts | STROBE also in: STROBE | concepts[4] | 1.0 | the paper's words |
| concepts | checklist also in: checklist | concepts[5] | 1.0 | the paper's words |
| concepts | observational studies also in: observational studies | concepts[6] | 1.0 | the paper's words |
| concepts | randomised trials also in: randomised trials | concepts[7] | 1.0 | the paper's words |
| concepts | CONSORT also in: CONSORT | concepts[8] | 1.0 | the paper's words |
| concepts | STREGA also in: STREGA | concepts[9] | 1.0 | the paper's words |
| concepts | transparent reporting also in: transparent reporting | concepts[10] | 1.0 | the paper's words |
| concepts | instrument to evaluate the quality of observational research | concepts[11] | 1.0 | the paper's words |
| concepts | prescriptions for designing or conducting studies | concepts[12] | 1.0 | the paper's words |
| concepts | confounding variables also in: confounding variables | concepts[13] | 1.0 | the paper's words |
| concepts | CONSORT also in: CONSORT | concepts[14] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | analytical epidemiology also in: analytical epidemiology | concepts[15] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | case-control also in: case-control | concepts[16] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | cross-sectional studies also in: cross-sectional studies | concepts[17] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | analytical observational research also in: analytical observational research | concepts[18] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | Recommendations on the reporting of research | concepts[19] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | reporting quality also in: reporting quality | concepts[20] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | quality of reports of randomised trials | concepts[21] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | potential confounders also in: potential confounders | concepts[22] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | effect modifiers also in: effect modifiers | concepts[23] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | statistical methods also in: statistical methods | concepts[24] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | missing data also in: missing data | concepts[25] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | loss to follow-up also in: loss to follow-up | concepts[26] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | sensitivity analyses also in: sensitivity analyses | concepts[27] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | unadjusted estimates also in: unadjusted estimates | concepts[28] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | confounder-adjusted estimates also in: confounder-adjusted estimates | concepts[29] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | relative risk also in: relative risk | concepts[30] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | absolute risk also in: absolute risk | concepts[31] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | generalisability also in: generalisability | concepts[32] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | external validity also in: external validity | concepts[33] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | standardising reporting also in: standardising reporting | concepts[34] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | STROBEd also in: STROBEd | concepts[35] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | regulating style or terminology also in: regulating style or terminology | concepts[36] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | good reporting also in: good reporting | concepts[37] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | research was of good quality also in: research was of good quality | concepts[38] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | clarity of reporting also in: clarity of reporting | concepts[39] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | evaluation also in: evaluation | concepts[40] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | evolving documents also in: evolving documents | concepts[41] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| unhoused_relations | clarity of reporting → evaluation Clarity of reporting is a prerequisite for evaluation. Prerequisite-for is not is-a, part-of, same-as, distinct-from, contrasted-with, operationalised-as, causes, or renamed-across-fields. | unhoused_relations[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | quality - of the REPORT: whether a reader can follow what was planned, done and found. This is what STROBE addresses | senses[0] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | quality - of the RESEARCH itself: how good the study is. The paper states explicitly that the checklist does not measure this | senses[1] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | guidance - on how to WRITE UP a study, as opposed to guidance on how to design or conduct one | senses[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | A REPORTING STANDARD THAT DISCLAIMS STANDARDISATION: `We do not aim at standardising reporting.` The document is a checklist of what must be present, and it explicitly refuses to prescribe the form - a distinction the field routinely collapses. | senses[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | Analytical epidemiology - domain here represented by cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional designs | senses[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | Case-control / cross-sectional studies - two of STROBE's three principal analytical observational designs | senses[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | Reporting recommendations - guidance that can improve reporting quality rather than prescribe study conduct | senses[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | CONSORT - prior reporting initiative credited with improving randomized-trial reports | senses[7] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | Potential confounders - variables to define explicitly alongside outcomes, exposures, predictors, and effect modifiers | senses[8] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | Effect modifiers - effect-varying variables that reports should define clearly | senses[9] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | Statistical methods - analysis, confounding-control, subgroup, interaction, missing-data, and design-specific procedures | senses[10] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | Sensitivity analyses - robustness analyses whose performance should be reported | senses[11] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | Unadjusted versus confounder-adjusted estimates - both forms, their precision, and adjustment rationale belong in main results | senses[12] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | Relative versus absolute risk - relative estimates may be translated into time-bounded absolute effects | senses[13] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | Generalisability / external validity - applicability of the study results beyond the observed sample and setting | senses[14] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | Standardising reporting - rigid-format goal explicitly disclaimed by STROBE | senses[15] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | STROBEd - rejected verb meaning regulation of a manuscript's style or terminology | senses[16] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | Good reporting - a property separable from whether the reported research itself was good | senses[17] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | Clarity of reporting - prerequisite for evaluation, not itself an evaluation instrument | senses[18] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | Evolving documents - reporting recommendations requiring ongoing assessment, refinement, and change | senses[19] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| alternatives | claim_type: method a second reading reaching the same value. Recorded: method — note: a second reading reaching the same value from a different sentence. Not applied - a person decides. | alternatives.claim_type | the tagger's words | |
| alternatives | method: system-or-tool-building a second reading DIFFERING from the recorded value. Recorded: expert-consensus — note: a second reading, verbatim-verified, disagreeing with the value on the record. Not applied - a person decides. | alternatives.method | the tagger's words | |
| alternatives | phenomenon: incomplete reporting of observational studies, and its remedy by checklist a second reading DIFFERING from the recorded value. Recorded: reporting quality of observational epidemiological studies — note: a second reading, verbatim-verified, disagreeing with the value on the record. Not applied - a person decides. | alternatives.phenomenon | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | builds-on → the CONSORT Statement for reporting randomised trials | claim_relations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | builds-on → the CONSORT Statement for randomised trials [ 12 ] | claim_relations[1] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | extends → empirical surveys of reporting deficiencies in epidemiology, psychiatry and stroke research | claim_relations[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | STROBE —is-a→ checklist strength of the relation: 1 | concept_edges[0] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | STROBE —distinct-from→ instrument to evaluate the quality of observational research strength of the relation: 1
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but endpoint by anaphora: 'the checklist' = the STROBE Statement checklist (previous sentences). | concept_edges[1] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | STROBE —distinct-from→ prescriptions for designing or conducting studies strength of the relation: 1
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but endpoint by anaphora: 'these recommendations' = the STROBE Statement (previous sentences). | concept_edges[2] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | STREGA —part-of→ STROBE strength of the relation: 0.8 · note: the paper says 'extension to STROBE'. An extension is a derivative rather than a component; part-of is the nearest of the eight and the fit is loose.
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span calls STREGA an EXTENSION to STROBE; part-of is loose. | concept_edges[3] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | observational studies —contrasted-with→ randomised trials strength of the relation: 1
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but endpoint by anaphora: the span continues 'Randomised trials cannot answer all important questions ... For example,' (previous sentence). also in: observational studies · randomised trials | concept_edges[4] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | Recommendations on the reporting of research —causes→ reporting quality the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 1 · note: The paper states directly that recommendations can improve reporting quality; 'can' describes capability, so the paper's claim is retained at weight 1.0.
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span says recommendations CAN improve reporting quality; hedged. | concept_edges[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | CONSORT —causes→ quality of reports of randomised trials the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 1 · note: The paper credits the CONSORT initiative with having improved the quality of randomized-trial reports. also in: CONSORT · quality of reports of randomised trials | concept_edges[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | STROBE —distinct-from→ standardising reporting the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 1 · note: The paper explicitly says STROBE should not be interpreted as rigid prescription and does not aim at standardizing reporting.
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span says STROBE is not a rigid format; distinct-from 'standardising reporting' paraphrases that. also in: STROBE · standardising reporting | concept_edges[7] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | generalisability —same-as→ external validity the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 1 · note: The checklist gives external validity as the parenthetical name for generalisability. also in: generalisability · external validity | concept_edges[8] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | good reporting —distinct-from→ research was of good quality the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 1 · note: The paper marks good reporting as the important feature, not whether the underlying research was good. also in: good reporting · research was of good quality | concept_edges[9] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 22 — number of checklist items in the STROBE Statement | content_tags.quantities[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | three — designs covered: cohort, case-control, cross-sectional | content_tags.quantities[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 22 items — size of the checklist | content_tags.quantities[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 18 common, 4 design-specific — how the checklist splits across the three designs | content_tags.quantities[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 17 of 49 articles (35%) — longitudinal stroke studies that did not specify eligibility criteria | content_tags.quantities[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 23 individuals — attendance at the workshop that drafted the checklist | content_tags.quantities[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | The reporting of such research is often inadequate, hampering assessment of its strengths, weaknesses and generalisability. about this quote: QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. | content_tags.findings[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Research should be reported transparently so readers can follow what was planned, done, found, and concluded. | content_tags.findings[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The checklist is 22 items: 18 common to all three designs, four design-specific. | content_tags.findings[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | The problem is documented, not assumed: 35% of longitudinal stroke studies did not state their eligibility criteria. | content_tags.findings[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | The rationale behind the choice of potential confounding variables was often not reported. | content_tags.findings[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Few reports of case-control studies in psychiatry explained the methods used to identify cases and controls. | content_tags.findings[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | STROBE Statement also in: STROBE Statement | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | observational study designs also in: observational study designs | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | the STROBE Statement also in: the STROBE Statement | content_tags.definitions[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | transparent reporting also in: transparent reporting | content_tags.definitions[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | confidence-interval also in: confidence-interval | content_tags.statistics[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | odds-ratio also in: odds-ratio | content_tags.statistics[1] | the tagger's words |
Tags that could not be placed in the text:
What was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.