4.8 Article

Reporting guidelines for human microbiome research: the STORMS checklist

期刊

NATURE MEDICINE
卷 27, 期 11, 页码 1885-1892

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41591-021-01552-x

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health [5R01CA230551]
  2. Leverhulme Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The STORMS tool is a reporting guideline for human microbiome studies, consisting of a 17-item checklist to help researchers report study results concisely and completely, facilitating manuscript preparation, peer review, and reader comprehension.
The particularly interdisciplinary nature of human microbiome research makes the organization and reporting of results spanning epidemiology, biology, bioinformatics, translational medicine and statistics a challenge. Commonly used reporting guidelines for observational or genetic epidemiology studies lack key features specific to microbiome studies. Therefore, a multidisciplinary group of microbiome epidemiology researchers adapted guidelines for observational and genetic studies to culture-independent human microbiome studies, and also developed new reporting elements for laboratory, bioinformatics and statistical analyses tailored to microbiome studies. The resulting tool, called 'Strengthening The Organization and Reporting of Microbiome Studies' (STORMS), is composed of a 17-item checklist organized into six sections that correspond to the typical sections of a scientific publication, presented as an editable table for inclusion in supplementary materials. The STORMS checklist provides guidance for concise and complete reporting of microbiome studies that will facilitate manuscript preparation, peer review, and reader comprehension of publications and comparative analysis of published results. The STORMS tool provides guidance for concise and complete reporting of microbiome studies to facilitate manuscript preparation, peer review, reader comprehension of publications, and comparative analysis of published results.

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

4.8
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