Assessment of STROBE Checklist Items in a Health Research Paper

This assignment presents a critical appraisal of a health research study, specifically focusing on STROBE checklist items 10, 12-17. The analysis evaluates the study's size, statistical methods, participant characteristics, and outcome data. The author demonstrates how the study met the criteria for each item, providing specific examples from the research paper by Deere et al. (2009). The appraisal highlights the study's strengths, such as the clear explanation of study size and participant selection, and its effective presentation of results. The assignment underscores the importance of these STROBE items in ensuring the validity and generalizability of the research findings. The assessment covers the study's methodology, including the use of multivariable variation and the reporting of both unadjusted and adjusted estimates. The appraisal also examines the analysis of subgroups, enhancing the understanding of the sample. The student effectively demonstrates the importance of these items in a well-structured and informative assessment of the health research paper.

Running head: CRITICAL APPRAISAL USING STROBE ITEMS 10, 12-17 1
Critical Appraisal Using Strobe Items 10, 12-17
Name
Institution

CRITICAL APPRAISAL USING STROBE ITEMS 10, 12-17 2
10: Study Size: This item was met as the authors fully explained how study size was
arrive at. For example, it is well explained how ALSPAC recruited expectant women with
anticipated delivery date between April 1st, 1991 and December 31st 1992 in Avon (Deer et al.,
2009). This inclusion is important because it makes readers understand the study size and the
possibility of generalizability.
12: Statistical Method: This item was also met because the researcher explained that the
data from reverted Actigraphs stood subsequently downloaded and then imported to a Microsoft
database of Access 2000 with analysis considering 3 physical activities. Multivariable variation
was also used for physical activity variables to compare myopic and non-myopic. The inclusion
of this item as it informs the interpretation of data and makes readers follow through seamlessly.
13: Participants: This item is met as the researcher has given number of participants
from each stage. For example, it shown that out of the total 7159 kids that attended the clinic
only 6622 consented to wearing Actigraphs and gave valid activity data and of whom only 4880
amongst them showed valid PA alongside auto-refraction data (Deer et al., 2009). It has been
helpful to show the numbers of potentially eligible, examined for eligibility and confirmed
eligible in the study. For example, it is stated in the study that children who never provided a
minimum of six-hundred minutes valid data on at least 3 distinct days were exempted from
analysis. The inclusion of this item is effective as it tells the readers who actually took part in the
study from the ones recruited.
14: Descriptive Data: This STROBE checklist item is met as the researcher has clearly
explained the characteristics of the study participants. In terms of demographics, there were
women, children and parents. Clinically, it gave information on myopic and non-myopic

CRITICAL APPRAISAL USING STROBE ITEMS 10, 12-17 3
children. The inclusion of this item helps us understand the kind of the population being studied
to inform the implication of the study.
15: Outcome Data: This item is met as the researcher has given information about case-
control study by reporting the numbers in every exposure category and summary of exposure
measures. For example, it shown that 4880 kids showed valid PA alongside auto-refraction data.
Further, myopic kids stood highly inactive as opposed to kids in minimally adjusted models for
gender and age. Also, it is shown that myopic children spent fewer time in MVPA than others.
This inclusion is efficient as it tells us all about the results in order to inform effective analysis
and interpretation.
16: Main Results: The item is met as the researcher has provided the unadjusted estimates
and, especially confounder-adjusted estimates alongside their precision. For example, it was
shown that myopic kids took fewer time in MVPA as opposed to non-myopic ones with Beta=-
3.20 minutes MVPA measured at 95% confidence interval (Deer et al., 2009). The inclusion of
precision is effective as it shows the ability to generalize the findings.
17: Other analysis: This item is also met as the researcher analyzed subgroups. The
researcher has presented an analysis by comparing myopic and non-myopic subgroups. This
inclusion was further effective in helping us understand the sample best.

CRITICAL APPRAISAL USING STROBE ITEMS 10, 12-17 4
References
Deere, K., Williams, C., Leary, S., Mattocks, C., Ness, A., Blair, S. N., & Riddoch, C. (2009).
Myopia and later physical activity in adolescence: a prospective study. British journal of
sports medicine, 43(7), 542-544.