Skip Navigation



IJE Advance Access published online on September 21, 2007
International Journal of Epidemiology, doi:10.1093/ije/dym185
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
36/5/946    most recent
dym185v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ebrahim, S.
Right arrow Articles by Clarke, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ebrahim, S.
Right arrow Articles by Clarke, M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Epidemiological Association © The Author 2007; all rights reserved.

STROBE: new standards for reporting observational epidemiology, a chance to improve

Shah Ebrahim1,* and Mike Clarke2

1Co-Editor IJE and Coordinating Editor, Cochrane Heart Group, LSHTM.
2Director UK Cochrane Centre, Oxford.

*Corresponding author. London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London WCIE 7HT. E-mail: Shah.ebrahim@lshtm.ac.uk

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

The shortfalls of observational epidemiology in terms of the generation of contradictory and spurious findings have been highlighted by many commentators—perhaps most memorably by pop-science journalist and general practitioner, James Le Fanu, who stated that ‘the simple expedient of closing down most University departments of Epidemiology could both extinguish this endlessly fertile source of anxiety-mongering while simultaneously releasing funds for serious research’.1 Serious critiques of observational epidemiology have highlighted its vulnerability to confounding, reverse causation, measurement error and selection bias.2,3 However, the closure of University departments and the abandonment of observational epidemiology might be premature without first trying some remedial steps.

One important step would be to improve the reporting of observational epidemiology studies. Lessons may be learned from the early days of randomized controlled trials where it was obvious that not all trials were equal—some were clearly better done than others and consequently produced more trustworthy results. . . . [Full Text of this Article]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?