ArticleBMJ open2017
The STROBE extensions: protocol for a qualitative assessment of content and a survey of endorsement.
Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Analysis of Mining-Related Injuries in Chinese Coal Mines and Related Risk Factors: A Statistical Research Study Based on a Meta-Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Pooled it
- Reporting practices for genomic epidemiology of tuberculosis: a systematic review of the literature using STROME-ID guidelines as a benchmark.The Lancet. Microbe · 2021Pooled it
- Safety and Effectiveness of Multi-Switch Between Adalimumab Originator and Biosimilars: A Multicenter (SUSTAIN) Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Age as a Predictor of Serum Tumor Necrosis Factor Antagonist Drug and Antidrug Antibody Concentrations in Inflammatory Bowel Disease-A Nationwide Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Quality Assessment of Cohort Studies in Complementary and Alternative Medicine: A Scoping Review Over Two Decades.Iranian journal of public health · 2025Review
- Quality Assessment of Traditional Persian Medicine Observational Studies.Iranian journal of public health · 2024Review
- Relationship of Viral Load with the Laboratory Markers and Prognosis in COVID-19 Patients.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2023Article
- The Role of Clinical Pharmacists in Improving Quality of Care in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: An Evaluation of Patients' and Physicians' Satisfaction.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- A scoping review of cohort studies assessing traditional Chinese medicine interventions.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2020Article
- Orthostatic vital signs do not predict 30 day serious outcomes in older emergency department patients with syncope: A multicenter observational study.The American journal of emergency medicine · 2019Observational
- Rating early child development outcome measurement tools for routine health programme use.Archives of disease in childhood · 2019Article
- The STROBE Extensions: Considerations for Development.Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement was developed in response to inadequate reporting of observational studies. In recent years, several extensions to STROBE have been created to provide more nuanced field-specific guidance for authors. The content and the prevalence of extension endorsement have not yet been assessed. Accordingly, there are two aims: (1) to classify changes made in the extensions to identify strengths and weaknesses of the original STROBE checklist and (2) to determine the prevalence and typology of endorsement by journals in fields related to extensions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Two independent researchers will assess additions in each extension. Additions will be coded as 'field specific' (FS) or 'not field specific' (NFS). FS is defined as particularly relevant information for a single field and guidance provided generally cannot be extrapolated beyond that field. NFS is defined as information that reflects epidemiological or methodological tenets and can be generalised to most, if not all, types of observational research studies. Intraclass correlation will be calculated to measure reviewers' concordance. On disagreement, consensus will be sought. Individual additions will be grouped by STROBE checklist items to identify the frequency and distribution of changes.Journals in fields related to extensions will be identified through National Library of Medicine PubMed Broad Subject Terms, screened for eligibility and further distilled via Ovid MEDLINE® search strategies for observational studies. Text describing endorsement will be extracted from each journal's website. A classification scheme will be created for endorsement types and the prevalence of endorsement will be estimated. Analyses will use NVivo V.11 and SAS University Edition. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study does not require ethical approval as it does not involve human participants. This study has been preregistered on Open Science Framework.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.