ScholarGate
Get started
Process / pipelineResearch MethodologyObservational study reporting standardPipeline

STROBE Checklist: Standards for Reporting Observational Studies

Also known as: STROBE

OriginatorVon Elm et al. (STROBE Group)Year2007Sources1Related methods7

STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) is a 22-item evidence-based checklist published in 2007 by Von Elm et al. to improve the quality of reporting of cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional observational studies. Like CONSORT for RCTs, STROBE is endorsed by over 300 journals and is widely considered the reporting standard for observational epidemiological research.

Key highlights

  • Tailored to observational designs; unlike generic checklists, STROBE items directly address selection, confounding, and measurement bias—the primary threats to observational studies
  • Design-specific variants (cohort/case-control/cross-sectional) ensure relevance without requiring separate tools
  • Wide journal adoption (>300 journals); international consensus reduces reporting heterogeneity
  • Concise (22 items) yet comprehensive; covers essential items without excessive burden
  • Accompanying explanatory paper (Von Elm et al., 2007) and online resource (strobe-statement.org) provide detailed guidance and examples for each item

Intuition

This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro

How it works

This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro

When to use it

STROBE is the standard for observational epidemiological research—mandatory or expected by most major medical journals. Use when writing or reviewing cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional study manuscripts, conducting systematic reviews of observational evidence, or evaluating reporting quality in a research field.

Strengths & limitations

Strengths
  • Tailored to observational designs; unlike generic checklists, STROBE items directly address selection, confounding, and measurement bias—the primary threats to observational studies
  • Design-specific variants (cohort/case-control/cross-sectional) ensure relevance without requiring separate tools
  • Wide journal adoption (>300 journals); international consensus reduces reporting heterogeneity
  • Concise (22 items) yet comprehensive; covers essential items without excessive burden
  • Accompanying explanatory paper (Von Elm et al., 2007) and online resource (strobe-statement.org) provide detailed guidance and examples for each item
Limitations
  • STROBE is a reporting standard, not a quality standard; a biased observational study can fully comply with STROBE reporting
  • No mechanism to enforce journal adoption; many journals claim to require STROBE but do not systematically verify compliance
  • Ambiguity in certain items (e.g., 'adequate' follow-up duration, 'sufficient' confounding adjustment); authors and reviewers may interpret items differently
  • Does not address novel sources of bias (e.g., social media data quality, real-world data linkage errors); may require supplementary guidance for emerging study types
  • Compliance monitoring is difficult; published observational studies often have incomplete STROBE adherence, and post-publication compliance audits are rare

Common pitfalls

This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro

Applications

This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro

Frequently asked

Do I have to use STROBE if my journal does not explicitly require it?

Highly recommended. Even journals not formally requiring STROBE benefit from its use; adhering to STROBE standards strengthens your manuscript and facilitates peer review. Over 300 journals endorse STROBE; submitting a completed checklist signals methodological rigor.

What is the difference between STROBE and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale?

STROBE is a reporting checklist (what items should be reported in a manuscript); Newcastle-Ottawa is a quality assessment tool (how to judge methodological quality). Use both: STROBE guides manuscript preparation; Newcastle-Ottawa guides critical appraisal of published studies. A well-reported study (high STROBE adherence) can still have methodological biases (low Newcastle-Ottawa score).

Can I use STROBE for diagnostic accuracy studies?

STROBE has limitations for diagnostic accuracy studies; the STARD checklist (Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) is more appropriate. STARD explicitly addresses sensitivity, specificity, and reference standard validity.

How detailed should I be in reporting confounding adjustment (Item 12)?

Report: (a) which variables were measured and adjusted for (list names), (b) methods of adjustment (stratification, regression, matching, IPW), (c) residual or unmeasured confounding not addressed. Readers need to assess whether adjustment was sufficient and whether unmeasured confounders are likely to substantially alter conclusions.

Does following STROBE guarantee that my observational study is valid?

No. STROBE ensures transparent reporting, enabling readers to identify potential biases. However, a poorly designed observational study—even if fully STROBE-compliant—may have serious methodological flaws (confounding, selection bias) that transparent reporting cannot fix. Design quality and reporting quality are distinct.

Sources

  1. 1.
    Von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Egger, M., Pocock, S. J., Gøtzsche, P. C., & Vandenbroucke, J. P. (2007). The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. The Lancet, 370(9596), 1453–1457.
    DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61602-X

You have read it. What now?

Ask about this methodSimilar methods

Cite this page

ScholarGate. (2026, June 3). STROBE Checklist. ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/research-methodology/strobe-checklist

STROBE Checklist: Standards for Reporting Observational Studies | ScholarGate