ReviewColombia medica (Cali, Colombia)2015
Weaknesses in the reporting of cross-sectional studies according to the STROBE statement: the case of metabolic syndrome in adults from Peru.
Review in Colombia medica (Cali, Colombia), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Healthcare professionals' knowledge and attitude toward Human papillomavirus vaccination: A critical appraisal of research evidence.Journal of education and health promotion · 2025Review
- Quality Assessment of Traditional Persian Medicine Observational Studies.Iranian journal of public health · 2024Review
- Adherence to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Statement in Observational Studies Published in Iranian Medical Journals.Iranian journal of public health · 2020Article
- Weaknesses in the Reporting of Cross-sectional Studies in Accordance with the STROBE Report (The Case of Congenital Anomaly among Infants in Iran): A Review Article.Iranian journal of public health · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe inadequate reporting of cross-sectional studies, as in the case of the prevalence of metabolic syndrome, could cause problems in the synthesis of new evidence and lead to errors in the formulation of public policies.
objectiveTo evaluate the reporting quality of the articles regarding metabolic syndrome prevalence in Peruvian adults using the STROBE recommendations.
methodsWe conducted a thorough literature search with the terms "Metabolic Syndrome", "Sindrome Metabolico" and "Peru" in MEDLINE/PubMed, LILACS, SciELO, LIPECS and BVS-Peru until December 2014. We selected those who were population-based observational studies with randomized sampling that reported prevalence of metabolic syndrome in adults aged 18 or more of both sexes. Information was analysed through the STROBE score per item and recommendation.
resultsSeventeen articles were included in this study. All articles met the recommendations related to the report of the study's rationale, design, and provision of summary measures. The recommendations with the lowest scores were those related to the sensitivity analysis (8%, n= 1/17), participant flowchart (18%, n= 3/17), missing data analysis (24%, n= 4/17), and number of participants in each study phase (24%, n= 4/17).
conclusionCross-sectional studies regarding the prevalence of metabolic syndrome in peruvian adults have an inadequate reporting on the methods and results sections. We identified a clear need to improve the quality of such studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26848197PMC4732506What OpenQuestion holds
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.