Advertisement

European Journal of Epidemiology

, Volume 26, Issue 10, pp 797–810 | Cite as

STrengthening the reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology—Molecular Epidemiology (STROBE-ME): an extension of the STROBE statement

  • Valentina Gallo
  • Matthias Egger
  • Valerie McCormack
  • Peter B. Farmer
  • John P. A. Ioannidis
  • Micheline Kirsch-Volders
  • Giuseppe Matullo
  • David H. Phillips
  • Bernadette Schoket
  • Ulf Stromberg
  • Roel Vermeulen
  • Christopher Wild
  • Miquel Porta
  • Paolo Vineis
GUIDELINES

Abstract

Advances in laboratory techniques have led to a rapidly increasing use of biomarkers in epidemiological studies. Biomarkers of internal dose, early biological change, susceptibility, and clinical outcomes are used as proxies for investigating the interactions between external and/or endogenous agents and the body components or processes. The need for improved reporting of scientific research led to influential statements of recommendations such as STrengthening Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement. The STROBE initiative established in 2004 aimed to provide guidance on how to report observational research. Its guidelines provide a user-friendly checklist of 22 items to be reported in epidemiological studies, with items specific to the three main study designs: cohort studies, case–control studies and cross-sectional studies. The present STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology—Molecular Epidemiology (STROBE-ME) initiative builds on the STROBE Statement implementing 9 existing items of STROBE and providing 17 additional items to the 22 items of STROBE checklist. The additions relate to the use of biomarkers in epidemiological studies, concerning collection, handling and storage of biological samples; laboratory methods, validity and reliability of biomarkers; specificities of study design; and ethical considerations. The STROBE-ME recommendations are intended to complement the STROBE recommendations.

Keywords

Epidemiology Molecular epidemiology Biomarkers Validation Reporting recommendations 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This paper is part of an activity sponsored by the ECNIS network (EC grant FOOD-CT-2005-513943) (www.ecnis.org). We acknowledge the contribution of Dan Segerbäck, Jim Vaught, Soterios Kyrtopoulos, Franz Oesch, Jelle Vlaanderen, and Jouni Jaakkola to the discussion of an earlier version of the paper. We also would like to thank all the reviewers for their valuable contribution and constructive feedback.

References

  1. 1.
    Altman DG, Royston P. What do we mean by validating a prognostic model? Stat Med. 2000;19(4):453–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Atkinson AJ, Colburn WA, DeGruttola VG, DeMets DL, Downing GJ, Hoth DF, Oates JA, Peck CC, Schooley RT, Spilker BA, Woodcock J, Zeger SL, Biomarkers Definitions Working Group. Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2001;69:89–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blair A, Saracci R, Vineis P, Cocco P, Forastiere F, Grandjean P, Kogevinas M, Kriebel D, McMichael A, Pearce N, Porta M, Samet J, Sandler DP, Costantini AS, Vainio H. Epidemiology, public health and the rhetoric of false positives. Environ Health Perspect. 2009;117:1809–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bonassi S, Au WW. Biomarkers in molecular epidemiology studies for health risk prediction. Mutat Res. 2002;511:73–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Castaldi PJ, Dahabreh IJ, Ioannidis JP. An empirical assessment of validation practices for molecular classifiers. Brief Bioinform. 2011;12(3):189–202. Epub 2011 Feb 7.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Casteleyn L, Dumez B, Jamers A, Van Damme K. Ethics and data protection in human biomarker studies. Lodz: ECNIS Publications; 2010.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Caporaso NE. Why have we failed to find the low penetrance genetic constituents of common cancers? Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2002;11:1544–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Da Costa B, Cevallos M, Altman D, Rutjes AW, Egger M. Uses and misuses of the STROBE statement: bibliographic study. BMJ 2010 Open doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2010-000048.
  9. 9.
    Decordier I, VandeLoock K, Kirsch-Volders M. Phenotyping for DNA repair capacity. Mutat Res. 2010;705(2):107–29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dusinska M, Vallova B, Ursinyova M, Hladikova V, Smolkova B, Wsolova L, Raslova K, Collins AR. DNA damage and antioxidants; fluctuations through the year in a central European population group. Food Chem Toxicol. 2002;40:1119–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fung AE, Palanki R, Bakri SJ, Depperschmidt E, Gibson A. Applying the CONSORT and STROBE statements to evaluate the reporting quality of neovascular age-related macular degeneration studies. Ophthalmology. 2009;116:286–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gallo V, Khan A, Gonzales C, Phillips DH, Schoket B, Győrffy E, Anna L, Kovács K, Moller P, Loft S, Kyrtopoulos S, Matullo G, Vineis P. Validation of biomarkers for the study of environmental carcinogens: a review. Biomarkers. 2008;13:505–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Giovannelli L, Saieva C, Masala G, Testa G, Salvini S, Pitozzi V, Riboli E, Dolara P, Palli D. Nutritional and lifestyle determinants of DNA oxidative damage: a study in a Mediterranean population. Carcinogenesis. 2002;23:1483–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Haines DA, Arbuckle TE, Lye E, Legrand M, Fisher M, Langlois R, Fraser W. Reporting results of human biomonitoring of environmental chemicals to study participants: a comparison of approaches followed in two Canadian studies. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2011;65:191–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hunter DJ. The future of molecular epidemiology. Int J Epidemiol. 1999;28:S1012–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ioannidis JPA. Genetic and molecular epidemiology. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2007;61:757–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ioannidis JP, Tzoulaki I. What makes a good predictor? the evidence applied to coronary artery calcium score. JAMA. 2010;303(16):1646–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ioannidis JP, Tarone R, McLaughlin JK. The false-positive to false-negative ratio in epidemiologic studies. Epidemiology. 2011 Apr 12 (in press).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ioannidis JPA, Panagiotou O. Comparison of effect sizes of biomarkers reported in highly-cited articles versus subsequent meta-analyses. JAMA. 2011;305:2200–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kristensen P. Bias from nondifferential but dependent misclassification of exposure and outcome. Epidemiology. 1992;3:210–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kyzas PA, Loizou KT, Ioannidis JP. Selective reporting biases in cancer prognostic factor studies. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97(14):1043–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kyzas PA, Denaxa-Kyza D, Ioannidis JP. Almost all articles on cancer prognostic markers report statistically significant results. Eur J Cancer. 2007;43:2559–79.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Leek JT, Scharpf RB, Bravo HC, Simcha D, Langmead B, Johnson WE, Geman D, Baggerly K, Irizarry RA. Tackling the widespread and critical impact of batch effects in high-throughput data. Nat Rev Genet. 2010;11(10):733–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Little J, Higgins JP, Ioannidis JP, Moher D, Gagnon F, von Elm E, Khoury MJ, Cohen B, Davey-Smith G, Grimshaw J, Scheet P, Gwinn M, Williamson RE, Zou GY, Hutchings K, Johnson CY, Tait V, Wiens M, Golding J, van Duijn C, McLaughlin J, Paterson A, Wells G, Fortier I, Freedman M, Zecevic M, King R, Infante-Rivard C, Stewart AF, Birkett N. Strengthening the reporting of genetic association studies (STREGA)-an extension of the strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:597–608.e4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lumbreras B, Parker LA, Porta M, Pollan M, Ioannidis JP, Hernandez-Aguado I. Overinterpretation of clinical applicability in molecular diagnostic research. Clin Chem. 2009;55:786–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    McShane LM, Altman DG, Sauerbrei W, Taube SE, Gion M, Clark GM. Reporting recommendations for tumour marker prognostic studies (REMARK). J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:1180–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Milikan R. The changing face of epidemiology in the genomics era. Epidemiology. 2002;13:472–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Moher D, Schulz KF, Simera I, Altman DG. Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS Med. 2010;7(2):e1000217.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Moller P, Wallin H, Holst E, Knudsen LE. Sunlight-induced DNA damage in human mononuclear cells. FASEB J. 2002;16:45–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Phillips DH, Castegnaro M. Standardization and validation of DNA adduct postlabelling methods: report of interlaboratory trials and production of recommended protocols. Mutagenesis. 1999;14:301–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Porta M, Pumarega J, Ferrer-Armengou O, López T, Alguacil J, Malats N, et al. Timing of blood extraction in epidemiologic and proteomic studies. Results and proposals from the PANKRAS II Study. Eur J Epidemiol. 2007;22:577–88.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Porta M (ed.) A dictionary of epidemiology. 5th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. p. 21, 69, pp. 129–130, 152, 157–158.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Porta M, Pumarega J, López T, Jariod M, Marco E, Grimalt JO. Influence of tumour stage, symptoms and time of blood draw on serum concentrations of organochlorine compounds in exocrine pancreatic cancer. Cancer Causes Control. 2009;20:1893–906.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ransohoff DF. Rules of evidence for cancer molecular-marker discovery and validation. Nat Rev Cancer. 2004;4:309–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Riley RD, Sauerbrei W, Altman DG. Prognostic markers in cancer: the evolution of evidence from single studies to meta-analysis, and beyond. Br J Cancer. 2009;100(8):1219–29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ruchirawa M, Mahidol C, Tangjarukij C, Pui-ock S, Jensen O, Kampeerawipakorn O, Tuntaviroon J, Aramphongphan A, Autrup H. Exposure to genotoxins present in ambient air in Bangkok, Thailand––particle associated polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and biomarkers. Sci Total Environ. 2002;287:121–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rundle AG, Vineis P, Ahsan H. Design options for molecular epidemiology research within cohort studies. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2005;14:1899–907.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT group. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. PLoS Med. 2010;7(3):e1000251.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sigounas DE, Tatsioni A, Christodoulou DK, Tsianos EV, Ioannidis JP. New prognostic markers for outcome of acute pancreatitis: overview of reporting in 184 Studies. Pancreas. 2011;40(4):522–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Simera I, Altman DG, Moher D, Schulz KF, Hoey J. Guidelines for reporting health research: the EQUATOR network’s survey of guideline authors. PLoS Med. 2008;5(6):e139.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Simera I, Moher D, Hoey J, Schulz KF, Altman DG. A catalogue of reporting guidelines for health research. Eur J Clin Invest. 2010;40(1):35–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sorensen M, Autrup H, Hertel O, Wallin H, Knudsen LE, Loft S. Personal exposure to PM2.5 and biomarkers of DNA damage. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2003;12:191–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Vahakangas K. Ethical aspects of molecular epidemiology of cancer. Carcinogenesis. 2004;25:465–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Vainio H. Genetic biomarkers and occupational epidemiology–recollections, reflections and reconsiderations. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2004;30:1–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Mulrow CD, Pocock SJ, Poole C, Schlesselman JJ, Egger M. STROBE initiative. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2007;4(10):e297. Review.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Vineis P. Individual susceptibility to carcinogens. Oncogene. 2004;23:6477–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Vineis P, Matullo G, Berwick M. Molecular epidemiology. In: Ahrens W, Pigeot I, editors. Handbook of epidemiology. Berlin & Heidelberg: Springer; 2005. p. 1111–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Vineis P, Perera F. Molecular epidemiology and biomarkers in etiologic cancer research: the new in light of the old. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2007;16:1954–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Vineis P, Gallo V. Epidemiological concepts of validation of biomarkers for the identification/quantification of environmental carcinogenic exposures. 2007. Poland, ECNIS.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. PLoS Med. 2007;4:e296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Whiting PF, Weswood ME, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PN, Kleijnen J. The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003;3:25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Wild C, Vineis P, Garte S, editors. Molecular epidemiology of chronic diseases. Amsterdam: Wiley; 2008.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Valentina Gallo
    • 1
    • 2
  • Matthias Egger
    • 3
  • Valerie McCormack
    • 4
  • Peter B. Farmer
    • 5
  • John P. A. Ioannidis
    • 6
    • 7
  • Micheline Kirsch-Volders
    • 8
  • Giuseppe Matullo
    • 9
    • 10
  • David H. Phillips
    • 11
  • Bernadette Schoket
    • 12
  • Ulf Stromberg
    • 13
  • Roel Vermeulen
    • 14
  • Christopher Wild
    • 4
  • Miquel Porta
    • 15
  • Paolo Vineis
    • 1
    • 9
  1. 1.Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public HealthImperial College LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Social and Environmental Health ResearchLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical MedicineLondonUK
  3. 3.Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine (ISPM)University of BernBernSwitzerland
  4. 4.International Agency for Research On Cancer, Centre International de Recherche sur le Cancer (IARC)LyonFrance
  5. 5.Department of Cancer Studies and Molecular MedicineUniversity of LeicesterLeicesterUK
  6. 6.Stanford Prevention Research CentreStanford University School of MedicineStanfordUSA
  7. 7.Department of Hygiene and EpidemiologyUniversity of Ioannina School of MedicineIoanninaGreece
  8. 8.Laboratory for Cell GeneticsVrije Universiteit BrusselBrusselsBelgium
  9. 9.HuGeF Human Genetics FoundationTurinItaly
  10. 10.Department of Genetics, Biology and BiochemistryUniversity of TurinTurinItaly
  11. 11.Institute of Cancer ResearchSuttonUK
  12. 12.National Institute of Environmental HealthBudapestHungary
  13. 13.Division of Occupational and Environmental MedicineLund UniversityLundSweden
  14. 14.Division Environmental EpidemiologyInstitute for Risk Assessment Sciences (IRAS), Utrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
  15. 15.Institut Municipal d’Investigacio Medica (IMIM)Universitat Autonoma de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations