Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Using STROBE checklist to assess the reporting quality of observational studies affiliated with Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, and its correlates: a scientometric study from Iran

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The reporting quality of Observational Studies (OSs) is an important measure of their overall quality. We aim to assess the reporting quality of OSs of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences (SUMS) in Iran in the years 2012–2015, using Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies checklist. Systematic online search was performed. A random sample of SUMS affiliated published articles was selected. Articles were appraised and scored by two reviewers. Variables such as the study design, publication year, journals’ impact factor etc. were retrieved and their correlation with the articles’ scores was assessed. Out of 4297 published articles during 2012–2015, 1742 (40.5%) were OSs of which we assessed 171 (~ 10%) studies. Among these, 87 (50.9%), 74 (43.3%) and 10 (5.8%) articles had a cross-sectional, case–control and cohort design, respectively. Overall score of the reporting quality was 79% ± 0.01. It was at 81% ± 0.1, 77% ± 0.01 and 83% ± 0.02 for cross-sectional, case–control and cohort studies, respectively. A significant correlation was observed between the study design and the score for the reporting quality (P = 0.015). Reporting of “flow-diagram” (5%), “sources of bias” (28%) and “study size calculation” (30%) were the most missed items. Although the overall reporting quality of OSs was found to be at an acceptable rate, there are points of concern regarding some of the most important items that deserve the attention of authors as well as reviewers and editors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bastuji-Garin, S., Sbidian, E., Gaudy-Marqueste, C., Ferrat, E., Roujeau, J.-C., Richard, M.-A., et al. (2013). Impact of STROBE statement publication on quality of observational study reporting: Interrupted time series versus before-after analysis. PLoS ONE,8(8), e64733–e64733. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0064733.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bero, L., Chartres, N., Diong, J., Fabbri, A., Ghersi, D., Lam, J., et al. (2018). The risk of bias in observational studies of exposures (ROBINS-E) tool: Concerns arising from application to observational studies of exposures. Systematic Reviews,7(1), 242. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0915-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fung, A. E., Palanki, R., Bakri, S. J., Depperschmidt, E., & Gibson, A. (2009). Applying the CONSORT and STROBE statements to evaluate the reporting quality of neovascular age-related macular degeneration studies. Ophthalmology,116(2), 286–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2008.09.014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glasziou, P., Altman, D. G., Bossuyt, P., Boutron, I., Clarke, M., Julious, S., et al. (2014). Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet,383(9913), 267–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62228-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groenwold, R. H., Van Deursen, A. M., Hoes, A. W., & Hak, E. (2008). Poor quality of reporting confounding bias in observational intervention studies: A systematic review. Annals of Epidemiology,18(10), 746–751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2008.05.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammer, G. P., du Prel, J.-B., & Blettner, M. (2009). Avoiding bias in observational studies: Part 8 in a series of articles on evaluation of scientific publications. Deutsches Arzteblatt International,106(41), 664–668. https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.2009.0664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han, S., Olonisakin, T. F., Pribis, J. P., Zupetic, J., Yoon, J. H., Holleran, K. M., et al. (2017). A checklist is associated with increased quality of reporting preclinical biomedical research: A systematic review. PLoS ONE,12(9), e0183591. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hemkens, L. G., Benchimol, E. I., Langan, S. M., Briel, M., Kasenda, B., Januel, J.-M., et al. (2016). The reporting of studies using routinely collected health data was often in sufficient. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,79, 104–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.06.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoppe, D. J., Schemitsch, E. H., Morshed, S., Tornetta, P., 3rd, & Bhandari, M. (2009). Hierarchy of evidence: Where observational studies fit in and why we need them. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery,91(Suppl 3), 2–9. https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.H.01571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irani, M., Hassanzadeh Bashtian, M., Khadivzadeh, T., Ebrahimipour, H., & Asghari Nekah, S. M. (2018). 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,47(12), 1796–1804.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeelani, A., Malik, W., Haq, I., Aleem, S., Mujtaba, M., & Syed, N. (2014). Cross-sectional studies published in indian journal of community medicine: Evaluation of adherence to strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology statement. Annals of Medical And Health Sciences Research,4(6), 875–878. https://doi.org/10.4103/2141-9248.144889.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langan, S., Schmitt, J., Coenraads, P. J., Svensson, A., von Elm, E., & Williams, H. (2010). The reporting of observational research studies in dermatology journals: A literature-based study. Archives of Dermatology,146(5), 534–541. https://doi.org/10.1001/archdermatol.2010.87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Wagner, C. S. (2008). International collaboration in science and the formation of a core group. Journal of Informetrics,2(4), 317–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2008.07.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Low, W. Y., Ng, K. H., Kabir, M. A., Koh, A. P., & Sinnasamy, J. (2014). Trend and impact of international collaboration in clinical medicine papers published in Malaysia. Scientometrics,98(2), 1521–1533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1121-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagarajan, V. B., Bhide, S., Kanase, H. R., Potey, A., & Tadavi, F. (2018). Adherence of observational studiesindian journals to STROBE statement. Journal of the Association of Physicians of India,66, 39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poorolajal, J., Cheraghi, Z., Irani, A. D., & Rezaeian, S. (2011). Quality of Cohort studies reporting post the strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement. Epidemiology and Health,33, e2011005–e2011005. https://doi.org/10.4178/epih/e2011005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pouwels, K. B., Widyakusuma, N. N., Groenwold, R. H., & Hak, E. (2016). Quality of reporting of confounding remained suboptimal after the STROBE guideline. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,69, 217–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.08.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramke, J., Palagyi, A., Jordan, V., Petkovic, J., & Gilbert, C. E. (2017). Using the STROBE statement to assess reporting in blindness prevalence surveys in low and middle income countries. PLoS ONE,12(5), e0176178. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0176178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rao, A., Bruck, K., Methven, S., Evans, R., Stel, V. S., Jager, K. J., et al. (2016). Quality of reporting and study design of CKD Cohort studies assessing mortality in the elderly before and after STROBE: A systematic review. PLoS ONE,11(5), e0155078. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155078.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsakiridis, I., Arvanitaki, A., & Zintzaras, E. (2019). Assessing the reporting quality of systematic reviews of observational studies in preeclampsia. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics,299(3), 689–694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-018-5023-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vandenbroucke, J. P., Von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Gøtzsche, P. C., Mulrow, C. D., Pocock, S. J., et al. (2007). Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Medicine,4(10), e297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Egger, M., Pocock, S. J., Gøtzsche, P. C., Vandenbroucke, J. P., et al. (2007). The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. PLoS Medicine,4(10), e296–e296. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Mr. H. Argasi at the Research Consultation Center (RCC) of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences for his invaluable assistance in editing this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. MPH Department, Shiraz Medical School, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

    Negin Rahmani & Hossein Molavi Vardanjani

  2. Institute for Cancer Research, Shiraz Medical School, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

    Negin Rahmani

  3. Research Center for Traditional Medicine and History of Medicine, Shiraz Medical School, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

    Alireza Salehi

  4. Department of Public Health, School of Public Health, Bushehr University of Medical Sciences, Bushehr, Iran

    Maryam Marzban

  5. MPH Department, Student Research Committee, Shiraz Medical School, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

    Arezoo Behbood

Authors
  1. Negin Rahmani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alireza Salehi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hossein Molavi Vardanjani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Maryam Marzban
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Arezoo Behbood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alireza Salehi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rahmani, N., Salehi, A., Molavi Vardanjani, H. et al. Using STROBE checklist to assess the reporting quality of observational studies affiliated with Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, and its correlates: a scientometric study from Iran. Scientometrics 122, 989–1001 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03317-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03317-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation