Interpersonal styles in major and chronic depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalisability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September, 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles.18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies.A detailed explanation and elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the websites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies

Appropriate methods for meta-regression applied to a set of clinical trials, and the limitations and pitfalls in interpretation, are insufficiently recognized. Here we summarize recent research focusing on these issues, and consider three published examples of meta-regression in the light of this work. One principal methodological issue is that meta-regression should be weighted to take account of both within-trial variances of treatment effects and the residual between-trial heterogeneity (that is, heterogeneity not explained by the covariates in the regression). This corresponds to random effects meta-regression. The associations derived from meta-regressions are observational, and have a weaker interpretation than the causal relationships derived from randomized comparisons. This applies particularly when averages of patient characteristics in each trial are used as covariates in the regression. Data dredging is the main pitfall in reaching reliable conclusions from meta-regression. It can only be avoided by prespecification of covariates that will be investigated as potential sources of heterogeneity. However, in practice this is not always easy to achieve. The examples considered in this paper show the tension between the scientific rationale for using meta-regression and the difficult interpretative problems to which such analyses are prone. Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.