An observational study can have a flawless design and still stumble in peer review if the write-up leaves out how confounders were handled, how participants were selected, or how much data went missing along the way. STROBE guidelines exist to close that gap for cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional research. STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology, the checklist’s full name, gives authors a structured way to disclose what was planned, what was done, and what was found, so that peer reviewers, clinicians, and systematic reviewers can judge a study on its actual methods rather than a polished summary of them. Editverse works with authors preparing observational manuscripts for journals that expect STROBE-compliant reporting, and this tutorial walks through what the 22-item checklist requires, how it compares with CONSORT and PRISMA, and where the STROBE family has grown since 2007.
Why STROBE Guidelines Matter for Observational Research in 2026
Much of biomedical research is observational, a point the original STROBE authors made in the opening line of their 2007 statement.1 Cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional designs answer questions a randomized trial cannot ethically or practically address, long-term drug safety, rare-disease risk factors, occupational exposures, and dozens of other questions where randomizing people is impossible or unethical. Reporting quality has not always kept pace with how much of the literature these designs make up.
Many journals now ask authors to submit a completed STROBE checklist alongside an observational manuscript. A methods section that omits how confounders were chosen, how missing data were handled, or how controls were selected is a common reason editors send a paper back before it ever reaches peer review, which pushes a manuscript toward desk rejection territory long before reviewers see the science. Poorly reported studies also cause a quieter problem downstream. They cannot be pooled with confidence into systematic reviews and meta-analyses, so the underlying research loses influence even when the science itself was sound.
A review in the Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia concluded that authors who work through STROBE systematically, rather than treating it as a submission afterthought, tend to have an easier path to acceptance for observational manuscripts.3 That said, journal endorsement of STROBE is considerably less uniform than researchers often assume, a finding worth unpacking later in this guide rather than glossing over.
The Three Study Designs the Checklist Covers
STROBE focuses on three analytical designs that dominate observational epidemiology. Knowing which one applies to a given study is the first decision, and it determines which version of the checklist to pull up.
Cohort Studies
A cohort study follows a defined group forward or backward through time to see who develops the outcome of interest. A prospective cohort enrolls people before the outcome occurs and follows them forward; a retrospective cohort reconstructs that same forward-looking logic from records that already exist. STROBE asks cohort reports to state eligibility criteria, describe how participants were identified, and account for losses to follow-up in enough detail that a reader can judge whether attrition biased the result. Matching criteria, if used, need their own description, along with the number of exposed and unexposed participants and how complete the follow-up actually was.
Case-Control Studies
Case-control studies work in the opposite direction. Researchers start with people who already have the outcome, the cases, and compare them with people who do not, the controls. STROBE asks authors to explain the rationale for how cases were defined, how they were identified, where controls came from, and how many controls were matched to each case. Skipping the rationale for control selection is a frequent weak point in submitted manuscripts, and it undermines the validity argument for the whole study more than most authors expect.
Cross-Sectional Studies
Cross-sectional studies measure exposure and outcome at a single point in time within a defined population. There is no follow-up period, so temporality between exposure and outcome cannot be established, which limits how much a cross-sectional design can say about cause and effect. STROBE requires these reports to describe eligibility criteria, participant selection, and how exposures and outcomes were assessed, along with the number of participants at each stage and how much data was missing for each variable.
The STROBE Checklist: All 22 Items Explained Simply
STROBE’s complete checklist contains 22 items, organized by manuscript section. Eighteen items apply universally across all three designs, while four items, numbers 6, 12, 14, and 15, carry design-specific variations for cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. Each table below breaks down the items for one manuscript section in plain language.
Title and Abstract (Item 1)
| Item | STROBE Requirement | What It Means (Simplified) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Title & Abstract | (a) Indicate the study design in the title or abstract using a commonly recognized term. (b) Provide an informative, balanced summary of what was done and what was found. |
A recognized term belongs in the title, “cohort study,” “case-control study,” or “cross-sectional study,” rather than a vague phrase like “prospective analysis.” Readers need enough in the abstract to understand purpose, methods, key findings, and conclusions without opening the full paper.
Introduction (Items 2 and 3)
| Item | STROBE Requirement | What It Means (Simplified) |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | Background / Rationale | Explain the scientific background and rationale. What gap in knowledge does this study address, and why does it need answering now? |
| 3 | Objectives | State specific objectives, including any pre-specified hypotheses. “We aimed to examine the association between X and Y” reads far better to a reviewer than “We studied X.” |
Methods (Items 4 through 12)
Most STROBE reporting failures happen in the Methods section. Methods carries more detail than any other section, and items 6, 12, 14, and 15 add design-specific requirements worth reading closely.
| Item | STROBE Requirement | What It Means (Simplified) |
|---|---|---|
| 4 | Study Design | Present key design elements early in the paper. State plainly, “this was a retrospective cohort study,” rather than the vaguer “an observational study.” |
| 5 | Setting | Describe the setting, locations, and relevant dates for enrollment, exposure, follow-up, and data collection, with dates as specific as possible. |
| 6 | Participants ★ | Design-specific. Cohort: eligibility criteria, sources, selection and follow-up methods, matching criteria. Case-control: case ascertainment, control selection rationale, matching criteria, number of controls per case. Cross-sectional: eligibility criteria, sources, and selection methods. |
| 7 | Variables | Define every outcome, exposure, predictor, potential confounder, and effect modifier. Never assume the reader can infer the coding scheme; spell it out. |
| 8 | Data Sources / Measurement | For each variable, describe data sources and assessment methods, instruments, questionnaires, lab procedures, and note comparability of methods across groups where relevant. |
| 9 | Bias | Describe any efforts to address potential sources of bias. This is one of the most commonly skipped items; even a brief statement about recall bias, selection bias, or misclassification satisfies it. |
| 10 | Study Size | Explain how the study size was reached. Describe a formal sample size calculation if one was performed, or acknowledge its absence as a limitation. |
| 11 | Quantitative Variables | Explain how quantitative variables were handled in the analysis. If a continuous variable was categorized, say why and how, tertiles, quartiles, or clinical cut-points. |
| 12 | Statistical Methods ★ | Design-specific additions. Describe all statistical methods, including confounding control, how missing data were addressed, and any sensitivity analyses. Cohort: how loss to follow-up was handled. Case-control: matching analysis methods. Cross-sectional: analytical methods addressing the sampling strategy, if applicable. |
Results (Items 13 through 17)
| Item | STROBE Requirement | What It Means (Simplified) |
|---|---|---|
| 13 | Participants | Report the number of individuals at each stage. A flow diagram is strongly encouraged, along with reasons for non-participation at each stage. |
| 14 | Descriptive Data ★ | Give participant characteristics and information on exposures and potential confounders. State the number with missing data for each variable. Cohort: summarize follow-up time. |
| 15 | Outcome Data ★ | Design-specific. Cohort: number of events or summary measures over time. Case-control: numbers in each exposure category. Cross-sectional: number of outcome events or summary measures. |
| 16 | Main Results | Give unadjusted estimates and, where applicable, confounder-adjusted estimates with confidence intervals. State which confounders were adjusted for and why, plus category boundaries for any categorized continuous variables. |
| 17 | Other Analyses | Report subgroup analyses, interactions, and sensitivity analyses, specifying which were pre-specified and which were exploratory. |
Discussion (Items 18 through 21)
| Item | STROBE Requirement | What It Means (Simplified) |
|---|---|---|
| 18 | Key Results | Summarize key results against the study objectives. Open the discussion with a clear, brief statement of the principal findings. |
| 19 | Limitations | Discuss limitations with reference to bias or imprecision, including likely direction and magnitude. A superficial one-liner will not satisfy a careful reviewer. |
| 20 | Interpretation | Give a cautious overall interpretation weighing objectives, limitations, multiple comparisons, and results from similar studies. Avoid causal language the design cannot support. |
| 21 | Generalizability | Discuss external validity. Who does the sample represent, who is missing from it, and where might the findings not transfer? |
Other Information (Item 22)
| Item | STROBE Requirement | What It Means (Simplified) |
|---|---|---|
| 22 | Funding | State the funding source and the funder’s role, for both the present study and, if relevant, the original study this article draws on. Disclose conflicts of interest. |
A Worked Example: Turning a Weak Methods Sentence into a Compliant One
Item 9, the bias item, is worth walking through in detail because it is the item authors skip most often, and because fixing it rarely takes more than a paragraph. What follows is illustrative, built to show the difference between a common weak submission and a compliant rewrite, not a quote from any specific published paper.
Picture a retrospective cohort study asking whether early mobilization after hip fracture surgery lowers the odds of 30-day readmission. A methods section that stops at “confounders were controlled for in a multivariable model” leaves Item 9 unaddressed. That sentence names an action without describing a single potential source of bias or what was done about it, so a reviewer has no way to judge whether selection bias, information bias, or confounding by indication was even considered.
A STROBE-compliant version does considerably more work in roughly the same space, along these lines. “Because mobilization timing was determined by the treating surgical team rather than randomized, patients selected for early mobilization may have differed systematically from those who were not, most plausibly by baseline frailty and comorbidity burden. We addressed this confounding by indication through multivariable adjustment for age, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and pre-fracture ambulatory status, all measured before the mobilization decision was made. Readmission ascertainment relied on hospital records, which may under-capture readmissions to outside facilities; we treated this as a potential source of outcome misclassification and discuss its likely direction in the Limitations section.”
Notice what changed. That rewrite names the specific bias mechanism (confounding by indication), states which variables addressed it and when they were measured, and flags a second, different bias (outcome misclassification) rather than treating “bias” as one generic box to check. That is the level of specificity Item 9 is actually asking for, and it is also what Item 12’s confounding-control requirement expects from the statistical methods description. Both items reinforce each other in practice even though STROBE lists them separately.
What Has Changed Since the Original 2007 Statement
Unlike CONSORT, which was substantially rewritten in 2025, or PRISMA, which went through a major 2020 overhaul, the core 22-item STROBE checklist itself has not changed since the 2007 workshop that produced it.1,2 The statement was reprinted in the International Journal of Surgery in 2014 to reach a surgical audience, but that was a republication of the same 22 items, not a revision. Researchers citing a “2014 STROBE update” are usually referring to that reprint rather than any change in content.
What has grown is the family of extensions built around the core checklist, and two recent additions are worth knowing about heading into 2026. STROBE-Equity, published simultaneously in BMJ and JAMA Network Open in 2025, adds structured items for reporting health-equity considerations in observational research, things like how socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity, or geography were measured and why particular equity-relevant subgroups were or were not examined.8 STROBE-D, a protocol published in BMJ Open in 2026, describes the planned development of an extension for drowning epidemiology research, built through a formal Delphi consensus process; as of this writing it remains a development protocol rather than a finished checklist, so authors in that field should watch for the completed statement rather than cite the protocol as if it were final guidance.9
STROBE Extensions: Which Checklist Should You Use
STROBE has expanded well beyond the original three designs to address specialized reporting needs. Each extension adds domain-specific items on top of the base 22, and picking the right one matters for meeting journal requirements.
| Extension | Full Name | Use When |
|---|---|---|
| STREGA | STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association Studies | The study investigates gene-disease associations, including GWAS |
| STROBE-ME | STROBE for Molecular Epidemiology | The study uses biomarkers or molecular-level exposure or outcome data |
| RECORD | REporting of Studies Conducted using Observational Routinely Collected Health Data | The study uses electronic health records, administrative claims, or registry data. Adds 13 items on top of STROBE.10 |
| STROBE-Vet | STROBE for Veterinary Epidemiology | The study reports observational veterinary or animal-health research.12 |
| STROBE-NI | STROBE for Newborn Infection | The study focuses on neonatal infection research |
| STROBE-nut | STROBE for Nutritional Epidemiology | The study examines dietary exposures and health outcomes |
| STROBE-AMS | STROBE for Antimicrobial Stewardship | The study evaluates antimicrobial stewardship programs |
| STROBE-RDS | STROBE for Respondent-Driven Sampling | The study uses respondent-driven sampling to reach hidden populations |
| STROBE-MR | STROBE for Mendelian Randomization | The study uses genetic variants as instruments to infer causality.11 |
| STROME-ID | STROBE for Molecular Epidemiology of Infectious Diseases | The study uses molecular typing in infectious disease epidemiology |
| STROBE-Equity (new, 2025) | Improving the Reporting on Health Equity in Observational Research | The study reports on health disparities or equity-relevant subgroups.8 |
| STROBE-D (in development, 2026) | STROBE for Drowning Epidemiology | The study reports drowning-related research; the finished checklist is not yet published.9 |
If a manuscript analyzes an observational study using propensity score matching, STROBE is still the right checklist. Propensity score methods are a statistical approach applied within an observational framework, not a separate study design requiring a different guideline.
Common STROBE Reporting Mistakes and How to Fix Them
Even experienced researchers make avoidable reporting errors. Editors and statistical reviewers see the same handful of gaps repeatedly, listed below with a practical fix for each.
- Using vague study design labels. Writing “this was an observational study” instead of “retrospective cohort study” or “matched case-control study” leaves reviewers guessing. State the exact design name in both the title and the methods section.
- Omitting a participant flow diagram. STROBE strongly recommends a diagram showing how participants moved through each stage. Build one showing initial eligible participants, exclusions with reasons, and the final analytical sample.
- Not explaining how confounders were selected. Listing covariates in a table is not enough; reviewers need to know why those specific confounders were chosen. Cite prior literature, use a directed acyclic graph, or state the clinical rationale for each one.
- Failing to address bias at all. Item 9 asks for a description of efforts to address bias, and many manuscripts skip it entirely. Dedicate at least one paragraph to selection bias, information bias, and confounding, and describe what was done to limit each, following the worked example above.
- Not reporting missing data. STROBE requires the number of participants with missing data for each variable of interest. Add a column to Table 1 showing available observations, or percent missing, per variable.
- Reporting only adjusted estimates. Item 16 requires unadjusted and confounder-adjusted estimates side by side. Present crude odds ratios, hazard ratios, or risk ratios alongside adjusted results so readers can see what adjustment changed.
- Treating STROBE as a quality-assessment tool. STROBE is commonly misused this way, when its purpose is reporting completeness, not methodological quality.13 Use STROBE for reporting and a tool such as the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for quality appraisal.
- Skipping sensitivity analyses. Item 17 asks for sensitivity analyses to be reported. Plan at least one, a complete-case analysis if imputation was used, or an analysis excluding borderline cases.
- Writing a superficial limitations section. “Our study has some limitations, including selection bias,” with no elaboration, will not satisfy a careful reviewer. Describe the likely direction and magnitude of each limitation and how it might affect the conclusions.
- Omitting funding and conflict-of-interest information. Item 22 is often left blank or incomplete. Always state the funding source, the funder’s role, and any conflicts of interest, even when the honest answer is none.
STROBE vs. CONSORT vs. PRISMA: Choosing the Right Guideline
Researchers often mix up reporting guidelines. Study design is the deciding factor, and getting it wrong is a fast way to have a manuscript sent back before it reaches peer review. Current versions of each guideline appear in the table below.
| Guideline | Study Type | Checklist Items | Key Focus |
|---|---|---|---|
| STROBE | Observational studies | 22 items (2007, unrevised) | Exposure-outcome associations, bias, confounding |
| CONSORT | Randomized controlled trials | 30 items (2025 revision, up from 25) | Randomization, blinding, intervention allocation, open science |
| PRISMA | Systematic reviews & meta-analyses | 27 items (2020 revision) | Search strategy, study selection, data synthesis |
| STARD | Diagnostic accuracy studies | 30 items (2015 revision) | Reference standard, sensitivity, specificity |
Editverse’s CONSORT guide covers the 2025 overhaul of the trial-reporting checklist in full, and the PRISMA 2020 guide does the same for systematic reviews, including the PRISMA flow diagram that plays a role similar to STROBE’s own participant flow diagram. If the manuscript in question is a qualitative study rather than a quantitative observational one, none of these three guidelines apply directly; Editverse’s comparison of SRQR, COREQ, and ENTREQ covers that territory instead.
How to Complete the Checklist Before Submission
A little sequencing keeps STROBE compliance from becoming a last-minute scramble the night before submission.
- Download the checklist that matches the study design. Visit strobe-statement.org/checklists and pull the cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional version, or the relevant extension if one applies.
- Work through it section by section. For each of the 22 items, note the page and line number in the manuscript where it is addressed. If an item does not apply, write “N/A” with a short justification rather than leaving it blank.
- Cross-reference the Explanation and Elaboration document. The companion paper by Vandenbroucke and colleagues provides worked examples for every item, useful for confirming the reporting meets the intended standard rather than a surface-level reading of it.2
- Have a co-author verify the checklist independently. A second reviewer often catches items marked “reported” when the underlying text is actually vague or incomplete.
- Submit the completed checklist with the manuscript. Many journals require it as a supplementary file. Label it clearly, and make sure page and line numbers match the exact version being submitted.
Does Endorsing STROBE Actually Change What Gets Published
Whether STROBE endorsement changes anything is worth asking directly, rather than assuming it does, and the honest answer is more mixed than most guides admit. A bibliometric study of journals across seven STROBE-extension-related fields found that formal endorsement, a journal explicitly requiring or recommending STROBE in its author instructions, was the exception rather than the rule, with many journals referencing reporting guidelines only in vague, general terms instead of naming STROBE specifically.4 A separate systematic review examined whether journals that endorse a reporting guideline actually publish more complete reports than journals that do not, pooling evidence across many individual comparisons; the relationship it found was real but inconsistent, stronger for some checklist items and journals than others, not a uniform effect researchers can bank on.5
Waiting for a journal to demand a STROBE checklist is, practically speaking, a weak strategy. Reporting completely because it makes the manuscript easier to evaluate, not because a submission portal forces the issue, is the more reliable path to a smoother review.
How Editverse Supports STROBE-Compliant Manuscripts
Preparing an observational study manuscript that fully meets STROBE reporting standards takes both subject-matter expertise and close attention to checklist requirements. At Editverse, biomedical editors and statistical reviewers work with researchers on STROBE compliance from the draft stage through final submission.
Our publication support services include dedicated STROBE compliance reviews where editors verify that every checklist item is addressed in the manuscript. We also provide manuscript writing assistance for observational studies, so the methods and results sections meet the reporting depth high-impact journals expect.
Whether the need is structuring a participant flow diagram, articulating a bias-mitigation strategy, or making sure the statistical methods section satisfies Item 12, Editverse’s editors bring the domain expertise to guide a manuscript through peer review.
Full Dissertation Editing
From $1,800
Comprehensive editing for observational dissertations
Writing up an observational study?
Our CONSORT/STROBE Checklist Compliance service checks your manuscript against STROBE and returns a completed checklist with page numbers, the gaps found and revision recommendations.
Check my manuscript ($175) Analysis not done yet? Statistical Analysis & Review ($475)
Frequently Asked Questions About STROBE Guidelines
What does STROBE stand for?
STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology. It is a 22-item checklist for reporting cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies, first published in 2007.
Is STROBE the same as a quality checklist?
No. STROBE checks whether a report is complete enough to evaluate, not whether the underlying study was well designed or well conducted. Tools like the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale exist separately for assessing methodological quality.
Has the STROBE checklist been updated recently?
Core items 1 through 22 have not changed since 2007. What has changed is the surrounding family of extensions, most recently STROBE-Equity in 2025 and a STROBE-D development protocol for drowning research in 2026.
Do all journals require a STROBE checklist?
No, and formal requirements vary more than many researchers expect. Some journals explicitly require a completed checklist as a supplementary file, others recommend it without requiring it, and others reference reporting guidelines only in general terms. Checking the specific journal’s author instructions is worth the five minutes it takes.
What is the difference between STROBE and CONSORT?
CONSORT covers randomized controlled trials and their allocation, blinding, and intervention details. STROBE covers observational studies, where there is no randomization to report and confounding and selection bias take center stage instead.
What is the difference between STROBE and PRISMA?
STROBE is for reporting a single primary observational study. PRISMA is for reporting a systematic review or meta-analysis that pools results across many studies, built around its own flow diagram tracking records screened and included rather than participants followed.
Where can I find the official STROBE checklist?
The full statement, checklists by study design, and the Explanation and Elaboration document are freely available through the official STROBE website and the EQUATOR Network.
Need Help With STROBE-Compliant Manuscript Reporting?
Editverse’s biomedical editors check every item on the STROBE checklist against your observational study manuscript, from participant flow diagrams to statistical methods disclosure.
Related Editverse Resources
→ CONSORT Guidelines Simplified for Trial Reporting
→ PRISMA 2020 Guidelines: Complete Checklist
→ PRISMA 2020 Flow Chart: Step-by-Step Guide
→ Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0 in Trials
→ Levels of Evidence in Clinical Research
→ SRQR vs COREQ vs ENTREQ: Qualitative Reporting Standards
→ Common Mistakes in Meta-Analysis and How to Avoid Them
→ Propensity Score Matching: Complete Step-by-Step Tutorial
→ Free Sample Size Calculator Guide for Researchers
→ Safeguarding Against Desk Rejection: A Researcher’s Survival Guide (2026)
References
1. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP; STROBE Initiative. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(4):344-349. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.11.008 PMID: 18313558
2. Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, et al; STROBE Initiative. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2007;4(10):e297. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040297 PMID: 17941715
3. Cuschieri S. The STROBE guidelines. Saudi J Anaesth. 2019;13(Suppl 1):S31-S34. DOI: 10.4103/sja.SJA_543_18 PMID: 30930717
4. Sharp MK, Tokalić R, Gómez G, Wager E, Altman DG, Hren D. A cross-sectional bibliometric study showed suboptimal journal endorsement rates of STROBE and its extensions. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;107:42-50. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.11.006 PMID: 30423373
5. Stevens A, Shamseer L, Weinstein E, et al. Relation of completeness of reporting of health research to journals’ endorsement of reporting guidelines: systematic review. BMJ. 2014;348:g3804. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.g3804 PMID: 24965222
6. Bruggesser S, Stöckli S, Seehra J, Pandis N. The reporting adherence of observational studies published in orthodontic journals in relation to STROBE guidelines: a meta-epidemiological assessment. Eur J Orthod. 2023;45(1):39-44. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjac045 PMID: 35968661
7. Winkler CJ, Ludke MJ, Janetos TM. STROBE Guideline Adherence Among Ophthalmology Journals. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2026. DOI: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2026.1930 PMID: 42275073
8. Dewidar O, Shamseer L, Melendez-Torres GJ, et al. Improving the reporting on health equity in observational research (STROBE-Equity): extension checklist and elaboration. BMJ. 2025;390:e083882. DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2024-083882 PMID: 40903054
9. Bitzer K, Peden AE, Bierens J, et al. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in drowning epidemiology (STROBE-D): a protocol for an extension to the STROBE statement. BMJ Open. 2026;16(7):e121255. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2026-121255 PMID: 42463202
10. Benchimol EI, Smeeth L, Guttmann A, et al; RECORD Working Committee. The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statement. PLoS Med. 2015;12(10):e1001885. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001885 PMID: 26440803
11. Skrivankova VW, Richmond RC, Woolf BAR, et al. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Using Mendelian Randomization: The STROBE-MR Statement. JAMA. 2021;326(16):1614-1621. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2021.18236 PMID: 34698778
12. Sargeant JM, O’Connor AM, Dohoo IR, et al. Methods and processes of developing the strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology, veterinary (STROBE-Vet) statement. Prev Vet Med. 2017;134:188-196. DOI: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2016.09.005 PMID: 27836042
13. Smith GD, Ho K, Penny KI. The importance of STROBE checklist adherence in reporting of observational studies: Not just a tick box exercise. J Adv Nurs. 2023;79(12):4431-4433. DOI: 10.1111/jan.15762 PMID: 37377130
Editverse Research Team | Updated August 2026