STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association Studies (STREGA)— An Extension of the STROBE Statement

By J. Little, Julian P. T. Higgins, John P. A. Ioannidis, David Moher, F. Gagnon, E. von Elm, M. Khoury, Barbara Cohen, G. Davey-Smith, Jeremy M. Grimshaw and 20 more. Annals of Internal Medicine, 2009

1,137 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Making sense of rapidly evolving evidence on genetic associations is crucial to making genuine advances in human genomics and the eventual integration of this information in the practice of medicine and public health. Assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of this evidence, and hence the ability to synthesize it, has been limited by inadequate reporting of results. The STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA) initiative builds on the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement and provides additions to 12 of the 22 items on the STROBE checklist. The additions concern population stratification, genotyping errors, modeling haplotype variation, Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium, replication, selection of participants, rationale for choice of genes and variants, treatment effects in studying quantitative traits, statistical methods, relatedness, reporting of descriptive and outcome data, and the volume of data issues that are important to consider in genetic association studies. The STREGA recommendations do not prescribe or dictate how a genetic association study should be designed but seek to enhance the transparency of its reporting, regardless of choices made during design, conduct, or analysis.

Subfields: Genetics, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c9345f9bc0ba25a882f98da425c9c26608290eaf

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Genetics

1. Margit Burmeister
2. Srijan Sen

In Statistics and Probability

1. Margit Burmeister
2. Richard P. Bagozzi
3. D. Greenwood
4. Kerby Shedden

Citations in the corpus

• Assessing the reporting of categorised quantitative variables in observational epidemiological studies (2017, background): “Most studies in medicine exhibit serious weaknesses due to issues of reporting [1, 2].”
• Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement. (2015, neutral): “While making revisions, conscious efforts were made to harmonize our recommendations with other reporting guidelines, and where possible we chose the same or similar wording for items [37,39,41,45,46].”
• The neuropsychology of consumer behavior and marketing (2018, background): “…candidate gene studies have become increasingly difficult to publish, and journals have been prompted to release editorial policies detailing strict guidelines regulating the publication of genetic association studies (see Hewitt, 2011 and Little et al., 2009; for examples of such policies).”
• The Serotonin Transporter Promoter Variant (5-HTTLPR), Stress, and Depression Meta-Analysis Revisited: Evidence of Genetic Moderation (2011, methodology): “We evaluated the methodological quality of the included studies by applying an 11-item quality checklist, derived from the STREGA (Strengthening the Reporting of Genetic Association Studies) and STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) checklists.(65,66) Specific”
• Replication in genome-wide association studies (2009, neutral): “dently replicated by other researchers [42].”