Adhering to good reporting standards enables readers to meaningfully assess research, making the research worthwhile [1]. Improvement in reporting quality has been noted among various types of studies, with the existence of reporting guidelines and compulsory implementation of these guidelines by journals [[2], [3], [4]].
Poor reporting quality has been noted among observational studies in surgery [5]. In order to improve the reporting quality of observational studies in surgery, Strengthening The Reporting Of Cohort Studies in Surgery (STROCSS) guidelines were composed in 2017 and updated in 2019; STROCSS guidelines have received tremendous acceptance within the surgical research community, having been cited over 1000 times since inception [6,7]. In order to maintain relevance and continue endorsing good reporting quality among surgical observational studies, we aimed to update STROCSS 2019 guidelines by forming a steering group who came up with proposals for improvement which were then put to an expert panel of researchers for scrutiny and consensus using the Delphi technique [8]. A high level of agreement was noted with the proposed changes to all the items, among the 42 Delphi group members [9,10]. This article aims to highlight the key updates to note in STROCSS 2021 guidelines.
Although STROCSS guidelines aimed to improve the reporting quality of all surgical observational studies, including cohort, cross-sectional and case-control studies, the title “Strengthening The Reporting Of Cohort Studies in Surgery” implied that they applied to cohort studies only. In order to highlight the relevance of STROCSS guidelines to other observational studies in surgery, such as cross-sectional and case-control studies, as well as cohort studies, the title has been modified to read “Strengthening The Reporting of Cohort, Cross-sectional and Case-control Studies in Surgery”. Additionally, items 1, 2b and 5a have been modified to highlight the relevance of STROCSS guidelines to all surgical observational studies (i.e. cohort, cross-sectional and case-control studies).
Item 3 has been modified to urge authors to provide reference to key literature within their introduction section, in addition to describing the background and scientific rationale for their study, to allow readers to better contextualise the research.
In the methods section, item 4a was modified to prompt authors to state if their research was retrospectively registered. Although prospective research registration may be the gold standard as per the Declaration of Helsinki, research conducted by Harriman and Patel showed that 67% of clinical trials, published in the BMC series over the course of 2013, that they studied were retrospectively registered; they highlighted the importance of avoiding non-publication of research involving humans and recommended authors to declare if their research has been retrospectively registered [[11], [12], [13]]. In keeping with this outlook, we have modified item 4a to not only prompt authors to register their research but also declare if research registration has been done retrospectively.
Increasingly, patient and public involvement (PPI) in research is being noted and there is growing evidence on the benefits of PPI in research [14]. However, poor reporting of PPI has been noted within surgical research [15]. Hence, item 4d in the methods section was modified to improve reporting quality of PPI among surgical observational studies. Additionally, a new item 17c in the declarations section calls for transparent reporting of contributorship by acknowledging PPI in research and disclosing the extent of involvement of each contributor.
Items 6a and 6b in the methods section have been modified to provide examples of sources of participant recruitment and methods of recruitment to each patient group, respectively, in order to improve clarity and enable authors to easily distinguish between the two.
Further modifications have been made to item 6b such as recommending authors to declare any monetary incentivisation of patients for recruitment/retention and clarifying the nature of incentives provided as well as recommending authors to declare the nature of informed consent. Providing financial incentives to research participants can encourage research participation and retention; however, with concerns surrounding the ethics and the trustworthiness of outcomes where research participants have been financially incentivised, the former modification has been made to item 6b [16]. The latter modification to item 6b, regarding informed consent, has been made in line with the recommendations provided in the declaration of Helsinki [11].
In the results section, item 10a has been modified to prompt authors to provide a figure to illustrate the flow of participants while item 12 has been modified to encourage authors to display a table showing research findings and statistical analyses with significance. Inclusion of such figures and tables allows readers to better engage with the research paper [17].
In the discussion section, item 14 has been modified to urge authors to declare any deviations from the protocol with reasons; deviations from the protocol may have an impact on the trustworthiness of the data as well as potentially compromising the safety, rights and welfare of the research participants [18].
In addition to the key changes described in detail above, numerous other changes have been made to improve the clarity and readability of the guidelines. Table 1 presents both STROCSS 2021 and STROCSS 2019 guidelines side by side for comparison.
Table 1.
STROCSS Guideline | ||
---|---|---|
Item no. |
Item description |
|
STROCSS 2021 | STROCSS 2019 | |
TITLE | ||
1 |
Title
|
Title:
|
ABSTRACT | ||
2a |
Introduction – briefly describe:
|
Introduction: the following points are briefly described
|
2b |
Methods - briefly describe:
|
Methods: the following areas are briefly described
|
2c |
Results - briefly describe:
|
Results: the following areas are briefly described
|
2d |
Conclusion - briefly describe:
|
Conclusion: the following areas are briefly described
|
INTRODUCTION | ||
3 |
Introduction – comprehensively describe:
|
Introduction: the following areas are described in full
|
METHODS | ||
4a |
Registration
|
Registration and ethics
|
4b |
Ethical approval
|
Ethical Approval: the following areas are described in full
|
4c |
Protocol
|
Protocol: the following areas are described comprehensively
|
4d |
Patient and public involvement in research
|
Patient Involvement in Research
|
5a |
Study design
|
Study Design: the following areas are described comprehensively
|
5b |
Setting and timeframe of research – comprehensively describe:
|
Setting: the following areas are described comprehensively
|
5c |
Study groups
|
Cohort Groups: the following areas are described in full
|
5d |
Subgroup analysis – comprehensively describe:
|
Subgroup Analysis: the following areas are described comprehensively
|
6a |
Participants – comprehensively describe:
|
Participants: the following areas are described comprehensively
|
6b |
Recruitment – comprehensively describe:
|
Recruitment: the following areas are described comprehensively
|
6c |
Sample size – comprehensively describe:
|
Sample Size: the following areas are described comprehensively
|
METHODS - INTERVENTION AND CONSIDERATIONS | ||
7a |
Pre-intervention considerations – comprehensively describe:
|
Pre-intervention Considerations: the following areas are described comprehensively
|
7b |
Intervention – comprehensively describe:
|
Intervention: the following areas are described comprehensively
|
7c |
Intra-intervention considerations – comprehensively describe:
|
Intra-Intervention Considerations: the following areas are described comprehensively
|
7d |
Operator details – comprehensively describe:
|
Operator Details: the following areas are described comprehensively
|
7e |
Quality control – comprehensively describe:
|
Quality Control: the following areas are described comprehensively
|
7f |
Post-intervention considerations – comprehensively describe:
|
Post-Intervention Considerations: the following areas are described comprehensively
|
8 |
Outcomes – comprehensively describe:
|
Outcomes: the following areas are described comprehensively
|
9 |
Statistics – comprehensively describe:
|
Statistics: the following areas are described comprehensively
|
RESULTS | ||
10a |
Participants – comprehensively describe:
|
Participants: the following areas are described comprehensively
|
10b |
Participant comparison
|
Participant Comparison: the following areas are described comprehensively
|
10c |
Intervention – comprehensively describe:
|
Intervention: the following areas are described comprehensively
|
11a |
|
Outcomes: the following areas are described comprehensively
|
11b |
Tolerance – comprehensively describe:
|
Tolerance: the following areas are described comprehensively
|
11c |
Complications – comprehensively describe:
|
Complications: the following areas are described comprehensively
|
12 |
Key results – comprehensively describe:
|
Key Results: the following areas are described comprehensively
|
DISCUSSION | ||
13 |
Discussion – comprehensively describe:
|
Discussion: the following areas are described comprehensively
|
14 |
Strengths and limitations – comprehensively describe:
|
Strengths and Limitations: the following areas are described comprehensively
|
15 |
Relevance and implications – comprehensively describe:
|
Implications and Relevance: the following areas are described comprehensively
|
CONCLUSION | ||
16 |
Conclusions
|
Conclusions:
|
DECLARATIONS | ||
17a |
Conflicts of interest
|
Conflicts of interest
|
17b |
Funding
|
Funding
|
17c |
Contributorship
|
Conflicts of interest
None declared - the authors have no financial, consultative, institutional, and other relationships that might lead to bias or conflict of interest.
Sources of funding
None.
Ethical approval
Not applicable.
Research registration Unique Identifying number (UIN)
-
1.
Name of the registry: Not applicable
-
2.
Unique Identifying number or registration ID: Not applicable
-
3.
Hyperlink to your specific registration (must be publicly accessible and will be checked): Not applicable
Author contribution
RA: concept, drafting, revision and approval of final manuscript. GM: drafting, revision and approval of final manuscript.
Guarantor
Riaz Agha
References
- 1.von Elm E., Altman D., Egger M., Pocock S., Gøtzsche P., Vandenbroucke J. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. PLoS Med. 2007;4(10):296. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Agha R., Farwana R., Borrelli M., Tickunas T., Kusu-Orkar T., Millip M., Thavayogan R., Garner J., Orgill D. Impact of the SCARE guideline on the reporting of surgical case reports: a before and after study. Int. J. Surg. 2017;45:144–148. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.07.099. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Agha R., Borrelli M., Farwana R., Kusu-Orkar T., Millip M., Thavayogan R., Garner J., Darhouse N., Orgill D. Impact of the PROCESS guideline on the reporting of surgical case series: a before and after study. Int. J. Surg. 2017;45:92–97. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.07.079. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Agha R., Fowler A., Limb C., Whitehurst K., Coe R., Sagoo H., Jafree D., Chandrakumar C., Gundogan B. Impact of the mandatory implementation of reporting guidelines on reporting quality in a surgical journal: a before and after study. Int. J. Surg. 2016;30:169–172. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.04.032. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Agha R., Lee S., Jeong K., Fowler A., Orgill D. Reporting quality of observational studies in plastic surgery needs improvement. Ann. Plast. Surg. 2016;76(5):585–589. doi: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000000419. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Agha R., Borrelli M., Vella-Baldacchino M., Thavayogan R., Orgill D., Strocss Group The STROCSS statement: strengthening the reporting of cohort studies in surgery. Int. J. Surg. 2017;46:198–202. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.08.586. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Agha R., Abdall-Razak A., Crossley E., Dowlut N., Iosifidis C., Mathew G., Strocss Group STROCSS 2019 guideline: strengthening the reporting of cohort studies in surgery. Int. J. Surg. 2019;72:156–165. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2019.11.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Pill J. The Delphi method: substance, context, a critique and an annotated bibliography. Soc. Econ. Plann. Sci. 1971;5(1):57–71. [Google Scholar]
- 9.Mathew G., Agha R., Strocss Group Strocss 2021: Strengthening the reporting of cohort, cross-sectional and case-control studies in surgery. Int. J. Surg. 2021;96:106165. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.106165. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Mathew G., Agha R., Strocss Group Strocss 2021: Strengthening the reporting of cohort, cross-sectional and case-control studies in surgery. Annal. Med. Surg. 2021;72:103026. doi: 10.1016/j.amsu.2021.103026. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.World Medical Association World medical association declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 2013;310(20):2191. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.281053. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Harriman S., Patel J. When are clinical trials registered? An analysis of prospective versus retrospective registration. Trials. 2016;17(187) doi: 10.1186/s13063-016-1310-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Boughton S. 2016. Retrospectively Registered Trials: the Editors' Dilemma’, Research in Progress Blog.https://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2016/04/15/retrospectively-registered-trials-editors-dilemma/ [Google Scholar]
- 14.Jones J., Cowe M., Marks S., McAllister T., Mendoza A., Ponniah C., Wythe H., Mathie E. Reporting on patient and public involvement (PPI) in research publications: using the GRIPP2 checklists with lay co-researchers. Res. Invol. Engag. 2021;7(1) doi: 10.1186/s40900-021-00295-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Jones E., Williams-Yesson B., Hackett R., Staniszewska S., Evans D., Francis N. Quality of reporting on patient and public involvement within surgical research. Ann. Surg. 2015;261(2):243–250. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000768. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Bentley J., Thacker P. The influence of risk and monetary payment on the research participation decision making process. J. Med. Ethics. 2004;30(3):293–298. doi: 10.1136/jme.2002.001594. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Tuncel A., Atan A. How to clearly articulate results and construct tables and figures in a scientific paper? Turkish J. Urol. 2013;39(Suppl 1):16–19. doi: 10.5152/tud.2013.048. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Jalgaonkar S., Bhide S., Tripathi R., Shetty Y., Marathe P., Katkar J., Thatte U. An audit of protocol deviations submitted to an institutional ethics committee of a tertiary care hospital. PLoS One. 2016;11(1) doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0146334. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]