Assessment of authors understanding of the STROBE-nut reporting guidelines
Hawwash, D.; Seck, M.; Quaranta, E.; Kolsteren, P.; Lachat, C.
Show abstract
ObjectivesTo test authors experience of applying the STrengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology-nutritional epidemiology (STROBE-nut) on a recently published paper. Correct understanding of the items on the reporting guidelines could lead to appropriate use. Designa cross sectional study, with a convenient sample. SettingParticipants were asked to return the STROBE-nut data collection template filled on recently published papers. Next, an interview was organised to collect feedback on the process of applying the guidelines. Two researchers involved in the development of STROBE-nut completed the template using the participants respective published papers. The filled templates were then compared to assess the measure of agreement of the STROBE-nut items as a proxy of understanding. ParticipantsAuthors who recently published papers reporting dietary assessment or food intake data. ResultsWe recruited 12 participants between May 2018 and June 2019. Five participants never used reporting guidelines before, while ten reported intention of future use. Half of the participants reported that the use of filling STROBE nut was useful, but some modifications are needed. Agreement between participants and experts on items reporting was generally low. Only two items had moderate weighted kappa agreement nut 1 (Kappa= 0.4, P 0.02) and nut 22.1 (Kappa= 0.47, P 0.01). ConclusionsThere is need to ensure correct understanding of STROBE-nut by authors. Revisions of STROBE-nut that make the items shorter and simpler can increase understanding. Training researchers at early stage on the aim of reporting guidelines could potentially increase proper use and decrease subjective interpretation.
Matching journals
The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Strategies used to manage overlap of primary study data by exercise-related overviews. Protocol for a systematic methodological review 94%
- Wearable Sensing in Eating Episode Monitoring: An Updated Systematic Review Protocol 94%
- GPT for RCTs?: Using AI to measure adherence to reporting guidelines 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Common misconceptions held by health researchers when interpreting linear regression assumptions, a cross-sectional study 95%
- Dietary Assessment and Prevention of Hypertension in Nigeria: Protocol for a Retrospective Cross-sectional Study for the Development and Validation of a Food Frequency Questionnaire for Clinical Use 95%
- Systematic review of instruments for assessing culinary skills in adults: What is the quality of their psychometric properties? 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Content quality versus sharing practices on social media: A cross-sectional analysis of nutrition information on Twitter 96%
- A novel web-based 24-hour dietary recall tool in line with the Nova food processing classification: description and evaluation 93%
- A novel food frequency questionnaire for Brazilian adults based on the Nova classification system: development, reproducibility and validation 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Relationship Between Participation In Daily Life Activities And Physical Activity In Stroke Survivors: A Protocol For A Systematic Review And Meta-Analyses-Based Data Synthesis 91%
- Beyond vaccination: A Cross-Sectional Study of the importance of Behavioral and Native Factors on COVID-19 Infection and Severity. 90%
- A Protocol for Identifying Priorities for Women+ Health in the Maritime Provinces using a Priority Setting Partnership Approach 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Does retraction after misconduct have an impact on citations? A pre-post study. 92%
- Designathons in Health Research: A Global Systematic Review 92%
- Following the science? Views from scientists on government advisory boards during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative interview study in five European countries 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.