
<script type="text/javascript">
<!--
document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>');
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://www.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=undefined&type=result"></script>');
-->
</script>
A decade after the publication of the STROBE (STrengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology) Statement, we use this anniversary as a time to reflect on STROBE’s impact and future avenues for addressing the incomplete reporting of observational studies.1 , 2 As an aid to authors, the STROBE Statement and an explanation and elaboration article were published in 2007 with generic guidance for reporting cohort, case–control, or cross-sectional studies. Subsequently, several extensions to STROBE were published, some including authors involved in the original Statement, to provide more nuanced and tailored guidance.3–15 In principal, these efforts are valuable, but inconsistencies may arise because extension production is not coordinated, and there is no clear guidance on their creation.
Observational Studies as Topic, strobe, Humans, Letters, reporting guidelines
Observational Studies as Topic, strobe, Humans, Letters, reporting guidelines
citations This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 4 | |
popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
views | 28 | |
downloads | 7 |