Advanced

The Reporting of Observational Research Studies in Dermatology Journals A Literature-Based Study

Langan, Sinead; Schmitt, Jochen; Coenraads, Pieter-Jan; Svensson, Åke LU ; von Elm, Erik and Williams, Hywel (2010) In Archives of Dermatology 146(5). p.534-541
Abstract
Objective: To assess the quality of reporting in observational studies in dermatology. Data Sources: Five 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 Selection: Cohort, 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 Extraction: All articles were extracted by 2... (More)
Objective: To assess the quality of reporting in observational studies in dermatology. Data Sources: Five 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 Selection: Cohort, 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 Extraction: All articles were extracted by 2 reviewers independently using standardized checklists based on the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations. Data Synthesis: The 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. Results: A 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. Conclusions: It 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. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
in
Archives of Dermatology
volume
146
issue
5
pages
534 - 541
publisher
American Medical Association
external identifiers
  • wos:000277773100012
  • scopus:77952590080
ISSN
0003-987X
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
0bb93f10-8b57-4646-bfd7-0a0b73128f2d (old id 1617610)
alternative location
http://archderm.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/146/5/534
date added to LUP
2010-06-21 13:58:59
date last changed
2018-07-15 03:43:04
@article{0bb93f10-8b57-4646-bfd7-0a0b73128f2d,
  abstract     = {Objective: To assess the quality of reporting in observational studies in dermatology. Data Sources: Five 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 Selection: Cohort, 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 Extraction: All articles were extracted by 2 reviewers independently using standardized checklists based on the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations. Data Synthesis: The 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. Results: A 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. Conclusions: It 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.},
  author       = {Langan, Sinead and Schmitt, Jochen and Coenraads, Pieter-Jan and Svensson, Åke and von Elm, Erik and Williams, Hywel},
  issn         = {0003-987X},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {5},
  pages        = {534--541},
  publisher    = {American Medical Association},
  series       = {Archives of Dermatology},
  title        = {The Reporting of Observational Research Studies in Dermatology Journals A Literature-Based Study},
  volume       = {146},
  year         = {2010},
}