IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0176178.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using the STROBE statement to assess reporting in blindness prevalence surveys in low and middle income countries

Author

Listed:
  • Jacqueline Ramke
  • Anna Palagyi
  • Vanessa Jordan
  • Jennifer Petkovic
  • Clare E Gilbert

Abstract

Objective: Cross-sectional blindness prevalence surveys are essential to plan and monitor eye care services. Incomplete or inaccurate reporting can prevent effective translation of research findings. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement is a 32 item checklist developed to improve reporting of observational studies. The aim of this study was to assess the completeness of reporting in blindness prevalence surveys in low and middle income countries (LMICs) using STROBE. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science databases were searched on April 8 2016 to identify cross-sectional blindness prevalence surveys undertaken in LMICs and published after STROBE was published in December 2007. The STROBE tool was applied to all included studies, and each STROBE item was categorized as ‘yes’ (met criteria), ‘no’ (did not meet criteria) or ‘not applicable’. The ‘Completeness of reporting (COR) score’ for each manuscript was calculated: COR score = yes / [yes + no]. In journals with included studies the instructions to authors and reviewers were checked for reference to STROBE. Results: The 89 included studies were undertaken in 32 countries and published in 37 journals. The mean COR score was 60.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 58.1–63.7%; range 30.8–88.9%). The mean COR score did not differ between surveys published in journals with author instructions referring to STROBE (10/37 journals; 61.1%, 95%CI 56.4–65.8%) or in journals where STROBE was not mentioned (60.9%, 95%CI 57.4–64.3%; p = 0.93). Conclusion: While reporting in blindness prevalence surveys is strong in some areas, others need improvement. We recommend that more journals adopt the STROBE checklist and ensure it is used by authors and reviewers.

Suggested Citation

  • Jacqueline Ramke & Anna Palagyi & Vanessa Jordan & Jennifer Petkovic & Clare E Gilbert, 2017. "Using the STROBE statement to assess reporting in blindness prevalence surveys in low and middle income countries," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(5), pages 1-12, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0176178
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0176178
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0176178
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0176178&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0176178?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sylvie Bastuji-Garin & Emilie Sbidian & Caroline Gaudy-Marqueste & Emilie Ferrat & Jean-Claude Roujeau & Marie-Aleth Richard & Florence Canoui-Poitrine & on behalf of the European Dermatology Network , 2013. "Impact of STROBE Statement Publication on Quality of Observational Study Reporting: Interrupted Time Series versus Before-After Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(8), pages 1-8, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Negin Rahmani & Alireza Salehi & Hossein Molavi Vardanjani & Maryam Marzban & Arezoo Behbood, 2020. "Using STROBE checklist to assess the reporting quality of observational studies affiliated with Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, and its correlates: a scientometric study from Iran," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(2), pages 989-1001, February.
    2. Samantha S R Crossfield & Lana Yin Hui Lai & Sarah R Kingsbury & Paul Baxter & Owen Johnson & Philip G Conaghan & Mar Pujades-Rodriguez, 2019. "Variation in methods, results and reporting in electronic health record-based studies evaluating routine care in gout: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(10), pages 1-18, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Negin Rahmani & Alireza Salehi & Hossein Molavi Vardanjani & Maryam Marzban & Arezoo Behbood, 2020. "Using STROBE checklist to assess the reporting quality of observational studies affiliated with Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, and its correlates: a scientometric study from Iran," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(2), pages 989-1001, February.
    2. Joosse, Iris R. & Tordrup, David & Bero, Lisa & Mantel-Teeuwisse, Aukje K. & van den Ham, Hendrika A., 2023. "A critical review of methodologies used in pharmaceutical pricing policy analyses," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0176178. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.