• Arch Dermatol · May 2010

    The reporting of observational research studies in dermatology journals: a literature-based study.

    • Sinéad Langan, Jochen Schmitt, Pieter-Jan Coenraads, Ake Svensson, Erik von Elm, Hywel Williams, and European Dermato-Epidemiology Network (EDEN).
    • Centre of Evidence-Based Dermatology, C Floor, South Block, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham NG 2UH, England. sinead.langan@nottingham.ac.uk
    • Arch Dermatol. 2010 May 1;146(5):534-41.

    ObjectiveTo assess the quality of reporting in observational studies in dermatology.Data SourcesFive dermatology journals-the Archives of Dermatology, the British Journal of Dermatology, the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, the Journal of Investigative Dermatology, and Acta Dermato-Venereologica.Study SelectionCohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies published as original articles during the period January 2005 through December 2007. Studies were identified with a literature search of PubMed combining the journal title and the term epidemiological studies (free text) and by hand searching all of the issues of each journal to identify relevant articles.Data ExtractionAll articles were extracted by 2 reviewers independently using standardized checklists based on the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations.Data SynthesisThe number and proportion of reported STROBE items were analyzed for each article. The proportion of studies with good reporting for each item was also assessed.ResultsA total of 138 articles were included and analyzed. Reporting quality was very mixed. Key areas that were infrequently reported included sample size calculations (n = 10 [7%]), missing data (n = 8 [6%]), losses to follow-up (n = 17 [12%]), and statistical methods (n = 19 [14%]). Only 13 studies (9%) explained the role of funders in the research. The quality of reporting was similar across study designs for "critical" questions with the exception of reporting of participant details, which was better reported in cohort studies (96%) compared with cross-sectional (80%) and case-control (70%) studies.ConclusionsIt is difficult to judge the quality of dermatological research unless it is reported well. This study has identified a clear need to improve the quality of reporting of observational studies in dermatology. We recommend that dermatology journals adopt the STROBE criteria.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.