The reporting adherence of observational studies published in orthodontic journals in relation to STROBE guidelines: a meta-epidemiological assessment

Background To facilitate clear and transparent reporting of observational studies the STROBE guidelines were developed. The aim of this investigation was to assess the reporting adherence of observational studies published in orthodontic journals in relation to STROBE guidelines. Associations between the reporting quality and study characteristics were explored. Materials and method A search of five leading orthodontic journals was undertaken to identify observational studies published between 1st January 2021 and 31st June 2021. Data extraction was performed in duplicate and independently. Descriptive statistics and frequency distributions for the responses to each checklist item were calculated. Proportional odds ordinal logistic regression for clustered data was implemented to assess potential associations between the three-level categorical outcome (not reported, inadequate reporting, adequate reporting) and study characteristics and individual checklist items. Results One hundred and thirty-five studies were analysed. The majority of studies were cohort designs (54.0%). Variability in the reporting of the STROBE guideline items was evident. In particular, a clear description of outcomes, exposures, predictors, potential confounders, and effect modifiers, statistical methods and participants were inadequately reported. In the multivariable analysis, the overall score test indicated that only item was a significant predictor of reporting quality (P < 0.001). Conclusions The findings of this study have highlighted that the reporting of observational studies published in orthodontic journals in relation to the STROBE guidelines is sub-optimal. Key areas of inadequate reporting relate to methodology and results. Key determinant of reporting quality was the STROBE item.