4.6 Article

Paediatric cohort studies on lower respiratory diseases and their reporting quality: systematic review of the year 2018

Journal

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
Volume 56, Issue 5, Pages -

Publisher

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOC JOURNALS LTD
DOI: 10.1183/13993003.00168-2020

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [32003B_162820]
  2. Swiss Cancer Research grant [4157-2017]
  3. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [32003B_162820] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The paediatric respiratory research community uses cohort studies extensively. However, the landscape of these studies and their quality of reporting has not been assessed. We performed a systematic review of publications on cohort studies reporting on paediatric lower respiratory problems published in 2018. We searched MEDLINE and Embase and extracted data on study and journal characteristics. We assessed the number of items of the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist that a random sample (100 papers) reported. We analysed factors associated with the STROBE score and with the most poorly reported items, using Poisson and logistic regression. Of the 21319 records identified, 369 full-text articles met our inclusion criteria. Most papers studied asthma aetiology through birth cohorts and were based in Europe or North America. The reporting quality was insufficient: 15% reported the 22 STROBE items; median (interquartile range) score 18 (16-21). The most poorly reported items were sources of bias, sample size, statistical methods, descriptive results and generalisability. None of the study or journal factors were associated with the STROBE score. We need a joint effort of editors, reviewers and authors to improve the reporting quality of paediatric cohort studies on respiratory problems.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available