Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17941715›Full record

ReviewPLoS medicine2007

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration.

Jan P Vandenbroucke, Erik von Elm, Douglas G Altman, Peter C Gøtzsche, Cynthia D Mulrow, Stuart J Pocock, Charles Poole, James J Schlesselman, Matthias Egger, STROBE Initiative

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in PLoS medicine, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 2,696 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2,696citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT02622529 completednot on this mapstarted 2015, after this paper: background citation

Patients' Conscious Experience and Psychological Consequences of Awake Surgery for Intracerebral Lesions

TypeobservationalSponsorCantonal Hospital of St. GallenRan2015 to 2018Enrolled20ConditionsFear, Anxiety, StressArmsScreening through questionnaires
NCT07167628 completednot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Neurological Complications and Intensive-Care Workload After Emergency Repair of Acute Type A Aortic Dissection: A Retrospective Cohort Study

TypeobservationalSponsorChina Medical University HospitalRan2021 to 2025Enrolled274ConditionsAortic Dissection, Stroke, Paraplegia, AKI - Acute Kidney Injury
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2,696 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. APOE ε4 accelerates plasma p-tau217 trajectory: a Bayesian joint longitudinal analysis of ADNI.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026
    Article
  16. Immediate satisfaction of children undergoing endodontic treatment or extraction of primary molars: a structural equation modelling analysis.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2026
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

2,636 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Jan P VandenbrouckeDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Erik von Elm
Douglas G Altman
Peter C Gøtzsche
Cynthia D Mulrow
Stuart J Pocock
Charles Poole
James J Schlesselman
Matthias Egger
STROBE Initiative

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Much medical research is observational. The reporting of observational studies is often of insufficient quality. Poor reporting hampers the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a study and the generalisability of its results. Taking into account empirical evidence and theoretical considerations, a group of methodologists, researchers, and editors developed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations to improve the quality of reporting of observational studies. The STROBE Statement consists of a checklist of 22 items, which relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies and four are specific to each of the three study designs. The STROBE Statement provides guidance to authors about how to improve the reporting of observational studies and facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of studies by reviewers, journal editors and readers. This explanatory and elaboration document is intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the STROBE Statement. The meaning and rationale for each checklist item are presented. For each item, one or several published examples and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature are provided. Examples of useful flow diagrams are also included. The STROBE Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.strobe-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of observational research.

Indexed as

Epidemiologic Research DesignGuidelines as TopicCase-Control StudiesCohort StudiesCross-Sectional StudiesObservationPublishing

Identifiers

PMID17941715
PMCPMC2020496

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.