Weaknesses in the Reporting of Cross-sectional Studies in Accordance with the STROBE Report (The Case of Congenital Anomaly among Infants in Iran): A Review Article

  • Morvarid IRANI Student Research Committee, Dept. of Midwifery, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
  • Maryam HASSANZADEH BASHTIAN Student Research Committee, Dept. of Midwifery, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mash-had, Iran
  • Talat KHADIVZADEH Nursing and Midwifery Care Research Center, Dept. of Midwifery, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
  • Hosein EBRAHIMIPOUR Social Determinants of Health Research Center, Dept. of Health Economic and Management Sciences, School of Health, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran
  • Seyyed Mohsen ASGHARI NEKAH Dept. of Educational and Counseling Psychology, School of Educational and Sciences Psychology, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran
Keywords: Iran, Epidemiology, Prevalence, Congenital anomaly, STROBE

Abstract

Abstract Background: The inadequate reporting of cross-sectional studies, as in the case of the prevalence of Congenital Anomaly, could cause challenges in the synthesis of new evidence and make possible mistakes in the creation of public policies. This study was conducted to critically appraise the quality of the articles involving congenital anomaly prevalence in Iranian infants with the STROBE recommendations. Methods: We performed a thorough literature search using the words "congenital anomaly" "birth defect" and "Iran" in MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, SID, Elmnet, Magiran, IranDoc, Iranmedex, and Google Scholar until Aug 2017. In this critical appraisal we focused on cross-sectional studies that reported the prevalence of congenital anomaly in Iranian infants. Data were analyzed using the STROBE score per item and recommendation. Results: The results of 17 selected articles on Congenital Anomaly prevalence showed that the overall accordance of the cross-sectional study reports with STROBE recommendations was about 63%. All articles met the recommendations associated with the report of the study’s rationale, objectives, setting, key results and provision of summary measures. Methods and results were the weakest part of the articles, in which recommendations associated with the participant flowchart and missing data analysis were not reported. The recommendations with the lowest scores were those related to the sensitivity analysis (6%, n=1/17), bias (6%, n=1/17), and funding (41%, n=7/17). Conclusion: Cross-sectional studies about the prevalence of congenital anomaly in Iranian infants have an insufficient reporting on the methods and results parts. We recognized a clear need to increase the quality of such studies.    

References

2. Glasziou P, Altman DG, Bossuyt P et al (2014). Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical re-search. Lancet, 383(9913):267-276.
3. Von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M et al (2014). The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiolo-gy (STROBE) Statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Int J Surg, 12(12):1495-9.
4. Mannocci A, Saulle R, Colamesta V et al (2015). What is the impact of reporting guidelines on Public Health journals in Europe? The case of STROBE, CON-SORT and PRISMA. J Public Health (Oxf), 37(4): 737–40.
5. Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG et al(2007). Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiolo-gy (STROBE): explanation and elabora-tion. Epidemiology, 18(6):805-35.
6. Costa BR, Cevallos M, Altman DG et al (2011). Uses and misuses of the STROBE statement: bibliographic study. BMJ Open, 1(1): e000048.
7. Shokohi M, Kashani KH (2001). Prevalence and risk factors of congenital malfor-mations in Hamadan. J Mazandaran Univ Med Sci, 12(35):42-5.
8. Irani M, Khadivzadeh T, Nekah A, Mohsen S, Ebrahimipour H, Tara F (2018). The prevalence of congenital anomalies in Iran: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. IJOGI, 21(Supple):29-41.
9. Al-Sadoon I, Hassan G, Yacoub A (1999). Depleted Uranium and health of people in Basrah: Epidemiological evidence. In-cidence and pattern of congenital anoma-lies among births in Basrah during the period 1990–1998. MJBU, 17:27-33.
10. Garry VF, Harkins ME, Erickson LL et al (2002). Birth defects, season of concep-tion, and sex of children born to pesti-cide applicators living in the Red River Valley of Minnesota, USA. Environ Healt perspect, 110(3): 441-9.
11. Farhud D, Walizadeh GR, Kamali MS (1986). Congenital malformations and genetic diseases in Iranian infants. Hum Genet, 74 (4): 382-5.
12. Farhud D (1997). Evidence for a New AD Syndrome: Report of a Large Iranian Sib-ship with Severe Multiple Synostosis. Iran J Public Health, 26(1-2): 39-44.
13. Farhud D, Hadavi V, Sadighi H (2000). Epi-demiology of neural tube defects in the world and Iran. Iran J Public Health, 29(1-4): 83- 90.
14. Afshar M, Golalipour MJ, Farhud D (2006). Epidemiologic aspects of neural tube de-fects in South East Iran. Neurosciences (Ri-yadh), 11(4): 289-92.
15. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J et al (2009). The PRISMA statement for re-porting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elabo-ration. BMJ, 339:b2700.
16. Mashhadi Abdolahi H, Kargar Maher MH, Afsharnia F, Dastgiri S(2014). Prevalence of congenital anomalies: a community-based study in the Northwest of Iran. ISRN Pediatr,2014.1-6.
17. Mohammadzadeh I, Sorkh H, Alizadeh-Navaei R (2013). Prevalence of external congenital malformations in neonates born in Mehregan Hospital, North of Iran. Genetics In The 3rd Millennium, 11(1) : 2990-95.
18. Khoshhal-Rahdar F, Saadati H, Moham-madian M et al (2014). The Prevalence of Congenital Malformationsin Dezful-2012. Genetics In The 3rd Millenni-um,12(2):3622-31.
19. Karbasi SA, Golestan M, Fallah R et al (2009). Prevalence of congenital malfor-mations. Acta Med Iran,47(2):149-53.
20. Akbarzadeh R, Rahnama F, Hashemian M, Akaberi A (2008). The incidence of ap-parent congenital anomalies in neonates in mobini maternity hospital in sabzevar, iran in 2005-6. Journal of Sabzevar University of Medical Sciences, 15 (4): 231-6.
21. Alijahan R, Mirzarahimi M, Ahmadi-Hadi P, Hazrati S (2013). Prevalence of Congenital Abnormalities and Its Related Risk Fac-tors in Ardabil, Iran, 2011. Iranian Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Infertility, 16 (54): 16-25.
22. Hosseini S, Nikravesh A, Hashemi Z, Rakh-shi N(2014). Race of apparent abnormali-ties in neonates born in Amir- almomen-in hospital of Sistan. J North Khorasan Univ Med Sci,6(3):753-579.
23. Ahmadzadeh A, Zahad S, Masoumeh A, Azar A (2008). Congenital malformations among live births at Arvand Hospital, Ahwaz, Iran-A prospective study. Pak J Med Sci, 24(1):33-37.
24. Masoodpoor N, Arab-Baniasad F, Jafari A (2013). Prevalence and pattern of congen-ital malformations in newborn in Rafsan-jan, Iran (2007-08). J Gorgan Univ Med Sci,15(3):114-7.
25. Tayebi N, Yazdani K, Naghshin N (2010). The prevalence of congenital malfor-mations and its correlation with consan-guineous marriages. Oman Med J, 25(1):37-40.
26. Kavianyn N, Mirfazeli A, Aryaie M et al (2016). Incidence of birth defects in Go-lestan province. J Gorgan Univ Med Sci, 17(4): 73-77.
27. Jalali S, Fakhraie S, Afjaei S, Kazemian M(2011). The incidence of obvious con-genital abnormalities among the neonates born in rasht hospitals in 2011. J Kerman-shah Univ Med Sci, 19 (2): 109-7.
28. Sarrafan N, Mahdi-nasab A, Arastoo L (2011). Evaluation of prevalance of con-genital upperand lower extremity abnor-malies in neonatal live births in Imam and Razi hospital of Ahvaz. Jundishapur Sci Med J, 10 (70): 13-19.
29. Amini Nasab Z, Aminshokravi F, Moodi M et al (2014). Demographical condition of neonates with congenital abnormalities under Birjand city health centers during 2007-2012. J Birjand Univ Med Sci, 21 (1): 96-103.
30. Dastgiri S, Imani S, Kalankesh L, Barzegar M, Heidarzadeh M (2007). Congenital anomalies in Iran: a cross-sectional study on 1574 cases in the North-West of country. Child Care Health Dev, 33 (3): 257-61.
31. Rostamizadeh L, Bahavarnia SR, Gholami R (2017). Alteration in incidence and pattern of congenital anomalies among new-borns during one decade in Azarshahr, Northwest of Iran. IJER,4(1):37-43.
32. Gheshmi AN, Nikuei P, Khezri M et al (2012). The frequency of congenital anomalies in newborns in two maternity hospitals in Bandar Abbas: 2007-2008. Genet 3rd Millennium, 9 (4): 2554-9.
33. Tapia JC, Ruiz EF, Ponce OJ, Malaga G, Mi-randa J (2015). Weaknesses in the report-ing of cross-sectional studies according to the STROBE statement: the case of metabolic syndrome in adults from Peru. Colomb Med (Cali),46(4):168-75.
34. Egger M, Altman DG, Vandenbroucke JP (2007), Commentary: strengthening the reporting of observational epidemiology the STROBE statement. Int J Epidemiol, 36(5): 948–50.
35. Fung AE, Palanki R, Bakri SJ, Dep-perschmidt E, Gibson A (2009). Apply-ing the CONSORT and STROBE state-ments to evaluate the reporting quality of neovascular age-related macular degenera-tion studies. Ophthalmology, 116(2): 286–96.
36. Muller M, Egger M (2009). Strengthening the reporting of observational epidemiol-ogy (STROBE) in sexual health. Sex Transm Infect, 85(3): 162–4.
37. Papathanasiou AA, Zintzaras E (2010). As-sessing the quality of reporting of obser-vational studies in cancer. Ann Epidemiol, 20(1): 67–73.
38. Jeelani A, Malik W, Haq I, Aleem S, Mujtaba M, Syed N (2014). Cross-sectional studies published in Indian journal of communi-ty medicine: evaluation of adherence to strengthening the reporting of observa-tional studies in epidemiology statement. Ann Med Health Sci Res, 4(6): 875–8.
39. Langan S, Schmitt J, Coenraads P-J, Svens-son Å, von Elm E, Williams H (2010). The reporting of observational research studies in dermatology journals: a litera-ture-based study. Arch Dermatol, 146(5):534-41.
40. Poorolajal J, Cheraghi Z, Irani AD, Rezaeian S (2011). Quality of cohort studies report-ing post the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiolo-gy (STROBE) statement. Epidemiol Health, 33: e2011005.
41. Glujovsky D, Villanueva E, Reveiz L, Mura-saki R (2014). Adherencia a las guías de informe sobre investigaciones en revistas biomédicas en América Latina y el Caribe. Rev Panam Salud Publica, 36(4): 232–7.
42. Pouwels KB, Widyakusuma NN, Groen-wold RH, Hak E (2016). Quality of re-porting of confounding remained subop-timal after the STROBE guideline. J Clin Epidemiol, 69:217-24.
43. Hopewell S, Ravaud P, Baron G, Boutron I (2012). Effect of editors' implementation of CONSORT guidelines on the report-ing of abstracts in high impact medical journals: interrupted time series analysis. BMJ, 344: e4178.
Published
2018-12-01
How to Cite
1.
IRANI M, HASSANZADEH BASHTIAN M, KHADIVZADEH T, EBRAHIMIPOUR H, ASGHARI NEKAH SM. Weaknesses in the Reporting of Cross-sectional Studies in Accordance with the STROBE Report (The Case of Congenital Anomaly among Infants in Iran): A Review Article. IJPH. 47(12):1796-804.
Section
Review Article(s)