Kia ora. This is to inform you of a planned outage of the repository from 8.30am on Friday 22 March as the server hosting for our repository is migrated. The outage is unlikely to last more than one hour. During that time it will not be possible for students to use the thesis submission form to upload content to the repository. Please leave any submissions until the following day.
Development of the Standards of Reporting of Neurological Disorders (Strond) Checklist: A Guideline for the Reporting of Incidence and Prevalence Studies in Neuroepidemiology
Bennett, DA; Brayne, C; Feigin, V; Barker-Collo, S; Brainin, M; Davis, D; Gallo, V; Jetté, N; Karch, A; Kurtzke, JF; Lavados, PM; Logroscino, G; Nagel, G; Preux, PM; Rothwell, PM; Svenson, LW
MetadataShow full metadata
Background: Incidence and prevalence studies of neurologic disorders play an important role in assessing the burden of disease and planning services. However, the assessment of disease estimates is hindered by problems in reporting for such studies. Despite a growth in published reports, existing guidelines relate to analytical rather than descriptive epidemiologic studies. There are also no user-friendly tools (e.g., checklists) available for authors, editors, and peer reviewers to facilitate best practice in reporting of descriptive epidemiologic studies for most neurologic disorders. Objective: The Standards of Reporting of Neurological Disorders (STROND) is a guideline that consists of recommendations and a checklist to facilitate better reporting of published incidence and prevalence studies of neurologic disorders. Methods: A review of previously developed guidance was used to produce a list of items required for incidence and prevalence studies in neurology. A 3-round Delphi technique was used to identify the “basic minimum items” important for reporting, as well as some additional “ideal reporting items.” An e-consultation process was then used in order to gauge opinion by external neuroepidemiologic experts on the appropriateness of the items included in the checklist. Findings: Of 38 candidate items, 15 items and accompanying recommendations were developed along with a user-friendly checklist. Conclusions: The introduction and use of the STROND checklist should lead to more consistent, transparent, and contextualized reporting of descriptive neuroepidemiologic studies resulting in more applicable and comparable findings and ultimately support better health care decisions.