The STROCSS statement: Strengthening the Reporting of Cohort Studies in Surgery
Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust1, John Radcliffe Hospital2, University of Nottingham3, Brigham and Women's Hospital4, ISMETT5, Banaras Hindu University6, Newton Wellesley Hospital7, Madras Institute of Orthopaedics and Traumatology8, University of the West Indies9, University of Michigan10, Sahlgrenska University Hospital11, Queen Mary University of London12, Aga Khan University13, University of Manchester14, Virginia Commonwealth University15, University of Padua16, Changi General Hospital17, King's College London18, Southampton General Hospital19, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center20, McMaster University21, University Hospital Waterford22, Turku University Hospital23, University of Mainz24, Bezmialem Foundation University25, Colchester Hospital University NHS Foundation Trust26, Kent State University27, Guy's Hospital28, Cairo University29, Children's of Alabama30
TL;DR: The development of the STROCSS guideline (Strengthening the Reporting of Cohort Studies in Surgery), consisting of a 17-item checklist, is described and it is hoped its use will increase the transparency and reporting quality of such studies.
About: This article is published in International Journal of Surgery.The article was published on 2017-10-01 and is currently open access. It has received 736 citations till now. The article focuses on the topics: Guideline & Checklist.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: The STROCSS 2019 guideline is presented as a considered update to improve reporting of cohort, cross-sectional and case-control studies in surgery to improve content and readability.
1,180 citations
Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust1, Changi General Hospital2, Government Medical College, Srinagar3, University of California, Los Angeles4, Rabin Medical Center5, Tel Aviv University6, The Chinese University of Hong Kong7, King's College London8, Guy's Hospital9, Swansea University10, Belfast Health and Social Care Trust11, Aga Khan University12, Harefield Hospital13, Shanghai University14, University College London15, Hospital Clínico San Carlos16, Università Campus Bio-Medico17, Indiana University18, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal19
TL;DR: In order to maintain relevance and continue upholding good reporting quality among observational studies in surgery, this paper aimed to update STROCSS 2019 guidelines, which were developed in 2017 and updated in 2019.
570 citations
TL;DR: A significant reduction in the performance of Acute Care Surgery procedures was observed during the COVID-19 pandemic, and a longer time from symptoms onset to patient arrival at the Emergency Department was noted.
124 citations
TL;DR: Outcomes of the surgical team compared to the published data of some other centers are demonstrated, and preoperative ERCP seems to make difficulty in bile duct dissection during PD.
95 citations
TL;DR: Luminal A tumor was the most prevalent subtype, while HER2-positive was the least prevalent, and a strong association was observed between axillary lymph node status and molecular subtypes.
Abstract: Objectives The study was aimed to determine the distribution of various breast cancer molecular subtypes in Saudi Arabia. Further, association between these subtypes and different epidemiological features was assessed. Methods A retrospective study was conducted between January 2012 and December 2018, at the King Abdul Aziz University Hospital. A total of 740 cases of breast cancer, using immunohistochemistry, were classified into 4 major molecular subtypes: luminal A, luminal B, HER2-positive, and triple negative. Chi-squared test was performed to evaluate the relationship between these subtypes and clinico-pathological features. Results Luminal A (58.5%) subtype was the most prevalent, followed by triple negative (16%), luminal B (14%), and HER2-positive (11.5%). The average age of the patient at the time of diagnosis was found to be 49 years with an average tumor size of 3.2 cm. Out of all cases, 85% of cases were ductal, while 11.4% were lobular. 66.6% showed axillary lymph node metastases. While, 77% of lobular carcinomas were found almost exclusively in the luminal A and triple negative tumor subtype, 69.5% had modified radical mastectomy. Conclusions Luminal A tumor was the most prevalent subtype, while HER2-positive was the least prevalent. Luminal A tumors were mostly associated with lobular carcinomas. HER2-positive and triple negative tumors showed higher histological grade and larger tumor size at the time of diagnosis. These tumors were commonly found in women below the age of 50 years. Carcinoma-in-situ was less prevalent in HER2-positive tumors. Furthermore, a strong association was observed between axillary lymph node status and molecular subtypes.
86 citations
Cites result from "The STROCSS statement: Strengthenin..."
...The study has been reported in line with the STROCSS criteria [17]....
[...]
References
More filters
TL;DR: David Moher and colleagues from the EQUATOR network offer guidance and recommended steps for developing health research reporting guidelines.
Abstract: David Moher and colleagues from the EQUATOR network offer guidance and recommended steps for developing health research reporting guidelines.
845 citations
TL;DR: Ian Sinha and colleagues advise that when using the Delphi process to develop core outcome sets for clinical trials, patients and clinicians be involved, researchers and facilitators avoid imposing their views on participants, and attrition of participants be minimized.
Abstract: Summary Points N Studies that use the Delphi process for gainingconsensus around a core outcome set for clinical trialsshould be of sufficiently high quality in order for theirrecommendations to be considered valid. N We report a systematic review of 15 studies that usedthe Delphi technique for this purpose, in which weidentified variability in methodology and reporting. N To improve the quality of studies that use the Delphiprocess for developing core outcome sets, we recom-mend that patients and clinicians be involved, research-ers and facilitators avoid imposing their views onparticipants, and attrition of participants be minimised. N Methodological decisions should be clearly described inthe main publication in order to enable appraisal of thestudy.Table 1. Reporting quality of the 15 included studies. Broad Aspect of ReportingSpecific Items for Which the ReportingQuality Was AssessedStudies in WhichClearly ReportedStudies in Which NotClearly Reported N/ASize and composition of the panel Number of participants 15 0 0Types of participants (e.g., clinicians, patients) 15 0 0Proportion of each type of participant 15 0 0How participants were identified/sampled 14 1 0Methodology of the Delphi process Administration of questionnaires (e.g., postal) 15 0 0How items were generated for first questionnaire 14 1 0What was asked in each round 15 0 0Information provided to participants beforethe first round69 0How the overall group response was fedback to participants87 0Level of anonymity (total or quasi-anonymity) 4 11 0A priori definition of ‘‘consensus’’ aboutwhether an outcome should be measured)71 7
655 citations
TL;DR: Both the updated CONSORT extension for NPT trials and the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials extension for abstracts should help authors, editors, and peer reviewers improve the transparency of NPT trial reports.
Abstract: Incomplete and inadequate reporting is an avoidable waste that reduces the usefulness of research. The CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) Statement is an evidence-based reporting guideline that aims to improve research transparency and reduce waste. In 2008, the CONSORT Group developed an extension to the original statement that addressed methodological issues specific to trials of nonpharmacologic treatments (NPTs), such as surgery, rehabilitation, or psychotherapy. This article describes an update of that extension and presents an extension for reporting abstracts of NPT trials. To develop these materials, the authors reviewed pertinent literature published up to July 2016; surveyed authors of NPT trials; and conducted a consensus meeting with editors, trialists, and methodologists. Changes to the CONSORT Statement extension for NPT trials include wording modifications to improve readers' understanding and the addition of 3 new items. These items address whether and how adherence of participants to interventions is assessed or enhanced, description of attempts to limit bias if blinding is not possible, and specification of the delay between randomization and initiation of the intervention. The CONSORT extension for abstracts of NPT trials includes 2 new items that were not specified in the original CONSORT Statement for abstracts. The first addresses reporting of eligibility criteria for centers where the intervention is performed and for care providers. The second addresses reporting of important changes to the intervention versus what was planned. Both the updated CONSORT extension for NPT trials and the CONSORT extension for NPT trial abstracts should help authors, editors, and peer reviewers improve the transparency of NPT trial reports.
650 citations
TL;DR: The definition and assessment of confounders is focused on, where age is known to be related to risk of hip fracture and therefore has the potential to be a confounder in the study of the association between antipsychotic use and hip fracture.
Abstract: Although confounding is an important problem of cohort studies, its effects can be minimised to enable valid comparison
In cohort studies, who does or does not receive an intervention is determined by practice patterns, personal choice, or policy decisions. This raises the possibility that the intervention and comparison groups may differ in characteristics that affect the study outcome, a problem called selection bias. If these characteristics have independent effects on the observed outcome in each group, they will create differences in outcomes between the groups apart from those related to the interventions being assessed. This effect is known as confounding.1 In the first paper in the series we dealt with the design and use of cohort studies and how to identify selection bias.2 This paper focuses on the definition and assessment of confounders.
For a characteristic to be a confounder in a particular study, it must meet two criteria.1 The first is that it must be related to the outcome in terms of prognosis or susceptibility. For example, in the study of the association between antipsychotic use and hip fracture that we considered in the first paper,2 age is known to be related to risk of hip fracture and therefore has the potential to be a confounder.
The second criterion that defines a confounder is that the distribution of the characteristic is different in the groups being compared. It can differ in terms of either the mean or the degree of variation or variability in that characteristic. For example, for age to be a confounder in a cohort study, either the average age or the variation in the age in the groups being compared would have to be different. Assessing variation as well as average values is important because groups can have the same average value …
532 citations
TL;DR: The PROCESS Guideline, consisting of an eight item checklist that will improve the reporting quality of surgical case series is presented and authors, reviewers, editors, journals, publishers and the wider surgical and scholarly community are encouraged to adopt these.
349 citations