Assessment of authors understanding of the STROBE-nut reporting guidelines

preprint OA: closed
📄 Open PDF View at publisher

Abstract

Objectives To 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. Design a cross sectional study, with a convenient sample. Setting Participants 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 participant’s 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. Participants Authors who recently published papers reporting dietary assessment or food intake data. Results We 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). Conclusions There 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.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. The paper's references may be in our DB but unresolved to ``paper_id`` (resolution happens at ingest when the cited DOI matches a row we already have). Run the cross-source citation reconcile pass to retry.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-19T01:45:01.086888+00:00