Analysis of Reports on Observational Studies Published in the Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing based on the STROBE Guideline

Kim, Sue; Oh, Hyun Ei; Song, Ju Eun; Kim, Myounghee; Ahn, Sukhee; Lee, Eun Joo; Jun, Eun Mi; Cheon, Sukhee

doi:2014.20.4.287

Korean J Women Health Nurs > Volume 20(4); 2014 > Article

Original Article

Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing 2014;20(4):287-296.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4069/kjwhn.2014.20.4.287 Published online December 31, 2014.

Analysis of Reports on Observational Studies Published in the Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing based on the STROBE Guideline

Sue Kim, Hyun Ei Oh, Ju Eun Song, Myounghee Kim, Sukhee Ahn, Eun Joo Lee, Eun Mi Jun, Sukhee Cheon

¹College of Nursing, Nursing Policy Research Institute, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea.
²Department of Nursing, Chosun University, Gwangju, Korea.
³College of Nursing, Ajou University, Suwon, Korea. songje@ajou.ac.kr
⁴Department of Nursing, Semyung University, Jecheon, Korea.
⁵College of Nursing, Chungnam National University, Daejeon, Korea.
⁶College of Nursing, Jeju National University, Jeju, Korea.
⁷Department of Nursing, Dong-Eui University, Busan, Korea.
⁸Department of Nursing, Sangji University, Wonju, Korea.

Abstract

PURPOSE
The purpose of this study was to analyze the quality of reports on observational studies published in the Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing (KJWHN).
METHODS
Forty-six studies using cross-sectional designs published in KJWHN from January 2011 to June 2013 were selected for analysis. Selected articles were reviewed and evaluated by three reviewers using the 22 items of the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement. As some of 22 items had more than one check point, further broken down, 34 checklist items were used for analysis.
RESULTS
Overall, the reviewed studies provided sufficient descriptions for many STROBE items. Seven of the 34 items were found to be not applicable, and 15 of the remaining 27 items (55.5%) were evaluated as 'sufficient' in reporting. Only one study included a flow diagram illustrating participation and this lack of flow diagram was the weakest area of reporting in this review.
CONCLUSION
Clearer reporting of cross-sectional studies can be attained by attention to vulnerable areas of reporting, such as including a flow diagram of participants, descriptions of sources of bias and reason for non-participation, and describing limitations of the study. Issues regarding the application of STROBE statement items should be actively discussed in order to aid future revision and clarification of items included in STROBE statement.

Key Words: Cross-sectional design; Quality of reporting; Guideline; STROBE