Poster Session

(62) Reporting Quality of Cohort Studies in Periodontology Before and After the STROBE Publication: A Trend Analysis

Co-Author(s)

YB

Yael Breziner, DDS

USC
Los Angeles, California, United States
KK

Kian Kar, DDS, MS

University of Southern California
Los Angeles, California, United States
SK

Satish S. Kumar, DMD, MDSc, MS

Professor
Arizona School of Dentistry & Oral Health A.T. Still University
Mesa, Arizona, United States

Lead Author(s)

Shira Scholten, DMD, MS (she/her/hers)

Associate Periodontist
AZPerio, USC Periodontics
Phoenix, Arizona, United States

Introduction:

Background: Observational studies are an important source of evidence in guiding clinical practice. The Strengthening of Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist was originally developed in 2007 to systematically improve reporting quality in observational research, including cohort studies. The aim of this research was to assess the reporting quality of cohort studies published between 2000 and 2018 in two high impact periodontology journals using the STROBE checklist.

Methods: The PubMed electronic database was used to select cohort studies published in the Journal of Periodontology (JOP) and the Journal of Clinical Periodontology (JCP) in two different years preceding the publication of STROBE (2000 and 2006) and two different years after publication of STROBE (2012 and 2018). Seven cohort articles were randomly selected from each journal at each time point, totaling 56 articles. Articles were analyzed and scored based on the STROBE checklist criteria, and a trend analysis of articles’ adherence to STROBE checklist across different time points, and journals was completed.

Results: The average adherence to the STROBE checklist of all articles was 73% and the STROBE score increased significantly over time (63% average score in year 2000 compared to 80% average score in 2018). Notable areas of inadequate reporting included attempts to address biases, explanation of sample size calculations, reporting of participation/follow-up, and reporting of the number of participants with missing data.

Conclusions: Though the quality of cohort studies published in periodontology has improved since the STROBE publication, many items from the checklist remained unmet across all years, leaving room for improvement. There is room for improvement in the reporting quality of cohort studies in periodontology.

Lead Author’s Contributions to the Research Project: The lead author was responsible for data collection, data analysis, and composition of the abstract, manuscript, and poster.