4.6 Review

STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA)-an extension of the strengthening the reporting, of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 62, 期 6, 页码 597-608

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.12.004

关键词

Gene-disease associations; Genetics; Gene-environment interaction; Systematic review; Reporting recommendations; Epidemiology; Genome-wide association

资金

  1. MRC [G0600705, MC_U105285807] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. Medical Research Council [MC_U105285807, G0600705] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Making sense of rapidly evolving evidence on genetic associations is crucial to making genuine advances in human genomics and the eventual integration of this information in the practice of medicine and public health. Assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of this evidence, and hence, the ability to synthesize it, has been limited by inadequate reporting Of results. The STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association (STREGA) studies initiative builds on the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement and provides additions to 12 of the 22 items on the STROBE checklist. The additions concern population stratification, genotyping errors, modeling haplotype variation, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, replication, selection of participants, rationale for choice of genes and variants, treatment effects in studying quantitative traits, statistical methods, relatedness, reporting of descriptive and outcome data, and the volume of data issues that are important to consider in genetic association studies. The STREGA recommendations (to not prescribe or dictate how a genetic association study Should be designed, but seek to enhance the transparency of its reporting, regardless of choices made during design, conduct, or analysis. (C) 2009 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据