scispace - formally typeset
Journal ArticleDOI

Explanation and Elaboration of the Standards of Reporting of Neurological Disorders Checklist: A Guideline for the Reporting of Incidence and Prevalence Studies in Neuroepidemiology.

Reads0
Chats0
TLDR
The STROND checklist is presented with an explanation and elaboration for each item, as well as examples of good reporting from the neuroepidemiological literature, to lead to more consistent, transparent and contextualised reporting of descriptive neuroepidemic studies.
Abstract
Background: Incidence and prevalence studies of neurological disorders play an extremely important role in hypothesis-generation, assessing the burden of disease and planning of health services. However, the assessment of disease estimates is hindered by the poor quality of reporting for such studies. We developed the Standards of Reporting of Neurological Disorders (STROND) guideline in order to improve the quality of reporting of neurological disorders from which prevalence, incidence, and outcomes can be extracted for greater generalisability. Methods: The guideline was developed using a 3-round Delphi technique in order to identify the ‘basic minimum items' important for reporting, as well as some additional ‘ideal reporting items.' An e-consultation process was then used in order to gauge opinion by external neuroepidemiological experts on the appropriateness of the items included in the checklist. Findings: The resultant 15 items checklist and accompanying recommendations were developed using a similar process and structured in a similar manner to the Strengthening of the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist for ease of use. This paper presents the STROND checklist with an explanation and elaboration for each item, as well as examples of good reporting from the neuroepidemiological literature. Conclusions: The introduction and use of the STROND checklist should lead to more consistent, transparent and contextualised reporting of descriptive neuroepidemiological studies that should facilitate international comparisons, and lead to more accessible information for multiple stakeholders, ultimately supporting better healthcare decisions for neurological disorders.

read more

Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI

Accuracy of Administrative Data for the Coding of Acute Stroke and TIAs

TL;DR: The accuracy of stroke identification based on administrative data from stroke centres may be improved by including I64 in ischemic stroke type, and by considering only inpatient data.
Journal ArticleDOI

Meta-analysis and systematic review of population-based epidemiological studies in idiopathic intracranial hypertension.

TL;DR: A better quality of epidemiological studies is required to improve understanding of IIH and inform health policy for IIH management, as increased obesity prevalence is associated with increased incidence ofIIH.
Journal ArticleDOI

Incidence of Sports-Related Traumatic Brain Injury of All Severities: A Systematic Review.

TL;DR: Estimating the incidence of SR-TBI in the general population across injury severities and trends in incidence by age and sport were challenging to determine due to lack of consistency in reporting as well as the small number of studies overall.
References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI

Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology - A proposal for reporting

TL;DR: A checklist contains specifications for reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies in epidemiology, including background, search strategy, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion should improve the usefulness ofMeta-an analyses for authors, reviewers, editors, readers, and decision makers.
Journal Article

Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 291 diseases and injuries in 21 regions, 1990-2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 (vol 380, pg 2197, 2012)

TL;DR: In this article, a comprehensive update of disease burden worldwide incorporating a systematic reassessment of disease and injury-specific epidemiology has been done since the 1990 study, and the authors aimed to calculate disease burden globally and for 21 regions for 1990, 2005, and 2010 with methods to enable meaningful comparisons over time.
Journal ArticleDOI

The environment and disease: association or causation?

TL;DR: The criteria outlined in "The Environment and Disease: Association or Causation?" help identify the causes of many diseases, including cancers of the reproductive system.
Journal ArticleDOI

Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 291 diseases and injuries in 21 regions, 1990-2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010

Christopher J L Murray, +369 more
- 15 Dec 2012 - 
TL;DR: The results for 1990 and 2010 supersede all previously published Global Burden of Disease results and highlight the importance of understanding local burden of disease and setting goals and targets for the post-2015 agenda taking such patterns into account.
Journal Article

The environment and disease: association or causation?

TL;DR: This paper contrasts Bradford Hill’s approach with a currently fashionable framework for reasoning about statistical associations – the Common Task Framework – and suggests why following Bradford Hill, 50+ years on, is still extraordinarily reasonable.
Related Papers (5)